edit SideBar

FACTNET.ORG FORUM: LaRouche Continued 2

< FACTNET.ORG FORUM: LaRouche Continued 1 | FACTNET.ORG FORUM | FACTNET.ORG FORUM: Your friendly tour guide to Lyn's Ground Zero real estate collapse >


Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 5:59 pm:


Folks, the last few days, it has taken forever to load the LaRouche Continued 1 thread, so it seems like time to start yet another one. In hopes you all agree, I have started this one. Thanks.


Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 6:20 pm:

Quick response to Eaglebeak on LaRouche and ideas. Yes, on how he appropriates the ideas of others, misuses them, fails to understand them, lacks the attention span to really understand them, and everything else you said. To which can be added that he applies sweeping generalizations to draw fallacious conclusions about both those he considers "good" and those he considers "bad," needing, for some Manichean reason, to categorize every important person in history as either "with me or against me," on the side of the angels or on the side of the devils, with no room for people who simply didn't know any better, or who did some positive things and some not--not to mention all the false reasons LaRouche has to put people on his sh*tlist.

I laughed at your simile about magpies and crows, but it's a bit too facile: there is method in his particular brand of madness, it's not just bright, shiny intellectual objects he likes. In terms of intellectual/philosophical history, he does have a relatively consistent (for him) rule of thumb in deciding whom to put in heavenly circles, and whom to condemn to Dante's Inferno--is someone a reductionist, a nominalist, or a platonist, a non-linear thinker. In politics, you have to have somewhere opposed either the British, the Venetians or the bankers to get on LaRouche's good side.

Where it gets hilarious is when you examine LaRouche's own writings, and find out that they are not only extremely reductionist, very simplistic, nominalist, even numerological at times, but also that LaRouche is a complete and total sophist. The very school of Athens--the Sophists--that he has taken to railing at (especially as he characterizes Baby Boomers as sophists) characterizes to a tee his own every writing in recent years (whether that was always the case, which at first thought I don't think so, is up for debate). But that's a story for another post (and another day).


Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 6:42 pm:

I would think an Aristotelian or empiricist is more of a "nonlinear thinker" than a Platonist: after all, an Aristotelian is more open to experience and the constant reevaluation of hypotheses in the light of that experience. It may be more exciting to be a Platonist or other like visionary, but for sheerly demonstrable truth - never LaRouche's concern in any of his phases - one can do no better than Aries Tottle, and others of his ilk.

While we're at it, it was Galileo's empirical observation of the phases of Venus that established once and for all the truth of the heliocentric model - not the geometrizing of the astrologer Kepler.

It is not surprising that LaRouche fears reality (what Peirce termed the brute facticity of the world) as that would require self-knowledge, and he fears that most of all.


Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 6:42 pm:


as i remember this campaign, the "fundamental/deeper" argument was that the c=256 pitch was consistent with "register-shifts" in the human voice, itself consistent with some "riemanian" concept of "phase-shift" in the physical Universe (aka "shock-waves"), itself consistent with larouche-riemann economical concept of "technological change" itself consistent with the Laws of the Universe (aka "neguentropy").
Some even tried to make "connections" between c=256 and the Golden Mean (0.618...). When I asked god himself about this, that I didn't see such connection between Golden mean and the musical scale at c=256 or even the well-tempered scale, he answered me with some Mumbo Jumbo about the curvature of the Universe…
That is the mystique behind the whole story. We are not far from Kepler's numerology. Kepler was, by the way, a paid astrologer working to the Court.

How were these artists approached and convinced to sign for c=256? Well, it s so easy! The fundamental rule is: NEVER address the question directly (as lyn did to my questions). For example, when trying to "organize" artists, musicians, NEVER talk about music (they might soon realize how incompetent you are), instead talk just a little about music and a LOT about "science", "politics", "history "etc. Same thing with scientists: NEVER talk about science with them (at least in a detailed way), but instead about "arts", "music", "culture", "religion" etc.
So, in the case of the c=256 campaign, the emphasis was about the pseudo-scientific proof that establishes c at 256 Hz. That impressed many musicians who hardly knew anything about maths, geometry, physics etc Then add a bit of politics (aka the Nazi pitch at A=440 -
Now, the key was to get one "big" name to sign first. Once this was done, since they all know each other (it s like a big family), the others followed… et voila!

On bankruptcy reorganization:

If larouche were in power, I am afraid the US economy would have the same fate as PMR's with similar consequences for the American people as Ken Kronberg's…


Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 6:55 pm:

Welcome to Helga:

Good news, it s official, you have beaten your Lindy in the hit parade of lunacy. Congratulations! Quite an achievement!
The Youtube polls indicate that your German satire has hit 4,401 views against only 4,167 views for Homer Simpson about your dear husband.
Now you ve got serious arguments to defend your case in the battle for succession…


Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 9:56 pm:

Ah, register shifts, yes, I had, somehow, completely forgotten that particular bit of lunacy. Of course, since not only are there at least 5 or 6 distinct major voice ranges, and I believe a few more secondary ones, the notion that any one pitch would optimize the register shifts for all voices is bit far-fetched.

But actually, it gets more bizarro than this. It is all coming back to me now, in full technicrud. The first question is, what difference does it make where the register shift takes place? Well, it's true that the same note sounds very different depending on which register it is sung in, especially true for the upper female register. So the real question is, how sensitive were composers to where the register shift would occur for their singers as they composed music? A fair question, until one considers…

…what I presented last night. That the pitches used at any given place and time varied all over the lot, certainly by as much as the difference between C256 and A440. So IF composers were consciously calculating this the way the LaRouche campaign for C256 claimed they were, then their music would only work the way they wanted it to IF SUNG AT EXACTLY THE PITCH THE COMPOSER HAD IN MIND when he composed it. But dear friend, we see that whatever this pitch was, it a) wasn't C256, and b) wasn't the least bit stable, but varied all over the place. So, HAD this been the concern of composers, it would have a losing battle, no matter how hard they tried.

However, we were treated to a most delectable illustration taken from one of the later sections of Gulliver's travels, the one where, if memory serves, people were all busily engaged in all manner of utterly useless activities, like gathering moonbeams and weaving them into cloth, or whatever. The activity that Kathy W. in particular spent a lot of time doing for some period of time was in "determining" the precise meaning of EVERY REGISTER SHIFT in a given piece of music. And by "determining," I mean, she would have a verbal explanation such as "here, he emphasizes passion by shifting to the middle register," or "here the shift to the upper register is to show a shift of mood from serene to worried." I kid you not. I can't even come up with made up examples. She came up with hundreds of such "explanations." How she "knew" that's what the composer had in mind, ah, that's a question for another day. But, all in all, highly creative, in the same sense that naming every flower in one's garden with an original female-sounding name could be called "creative"—and totally, utterly, mind-numbingly stupid.

To rephrase the argument, C256 couldn't possibly be "consistent with register-shifts in the human voice," since what matters is what notes the composer chooses to use. Whether one uses C256 or some other value, the composer still chooses a) which scale to write the music in, which alters where the register shifts will be relative to the base of the scale, and b) which notes to write, which determines which notes will require a register shift. How any "natural" value could apply here, given the role of the free will of the composer, is beyond me.

Thanks, Shadok, for your deeper and more specific recollections, and your sense of how the campaign actually recruited some noted opera singers. As for your analogy to PMR, come on. PMR hung on for nearly 25 years. The entire economy would collapse within hours in the worst and deepest panic in history if people thought for a moment that LaRouche might get anywhere near the levers of monetary and financial power.


Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:03 pm:

Sancho, please. Who's talking about a real Aristotelian? When on this blog, we're talking about LaRouche Aristotelians. You know, straw men. Caricatures. LaRouche Aristotelians are whatever LaRouche says they are. If he says they are linear thinkers, well, they're his creations, he gets to say what they are. It's the same with political figures. We now have LaRouche Truman, who set out systematically to wreck everything FDR stood for. No matter that he launched the Marshall Plan, began desegration in general and desegregated the Army, and did a number of other things that might at least give him a shot at the lowest circles of Purgatory. But here, we aren't concerned with historical Truman, just with LaRouche Truman. Oh, and LaRouche Eisenhower, the great savior who made (or kept) the great democrat Allen Dulles as head of the CIA and his brother John Foster as secretary of state. The great Eisenhower who was clearly a much better president than Adlai Stevenson would have been. But again, this is not about historical Eisenhower, but about LaRouche Eisenhower, and LaRouche Eisenhower, like LaRouche Truman, is whatever LaRouchs says they are. They are his creations, and he can do what he wants with them.


Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 1:50 am:

Right. Like LaRouche Catholics. When that one didn't fly, he now ends up with LaRouche infinitesimals. Marcos was a LaRouche tyrant, so he was OK.

My dog has a LaRouche lamppost he likes to go on.

Perhaps the word LaRouche could become an adjective synonymous with "broken." Instead of saying "my DVD player is broken", one could say "I have a LaRouche DVD player", etc.


Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 8:04 am:

You have no idea of how close you are in describing the final legacy of Lyn in the age of the internet.

On countless blogs and web sites things chug along until someone posts some absolutely bizarre and kooky idea that stands head and shoulders above everyone else in sheer lunacy. That poster is usually described as using "Larouche Logic" in creating a "Larouche styled" or "Larouchified" piece of work.

On the floor of the US Congress I think a Senator used those words to describe some colleaugues statement on some issue.

This may also be a clinical sign for psychologists and cultural anthroplogists to study about group dynamics. The yutes should merely look at how any Leesburg deadender or THREE DECADE card table shriner will adopt a personal version of Larouche Logic to explain any current or past event. You can also use Larouche Logic in completely forgetting the past and what ever you wrote or said in formulating the new conspiracy of the month club delusion.

Fearless Leader will get his legacy yet and the least he can do is thank those who use the WABAC Machine to help his final quest for a footnote in history.


Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 9:27 am:

Fortunately, it will be a LaRouche footnote.


Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 2:48 pm:

The C256 tuning is an important issue regarding the Cult MIND CONTROL.
Cults have this technique using choruses and chants for a get-together fusion sort of ceremonies, which bond members to the "group", identify themselves to the "group", in this case the Larouche-Youth Movement.
The c-256 in that sense is key, a sort of justification for all members of the LYM to be TUNED harmoniously… to the laws of the universe.
And believe or not, when they sing Bach in the streets, they really think they are doing some kind of connection between the microcosm and the macrocosm. Speaking of lunacy? That's their little secret.
The c256 is also very revealing on how un-creative, if not anti-creative the organisation is. Indeed the classical composers weren't that obsessed with that sort of issues. They had more important job to do: to create, to compose. I am fascinated by the fact geniuses like Beethoven or Mozart spent more time (and were paid for it) to IMPROVISE and be part of improvisation competitions than sitting in their room trying to adjust to the "laws of the universe". They were truly free minds and there is no creativity without freedom (I agree on that point with larouche…for once) Some of these improvisations were eventually integrated in their written compositions.
No ICLC/LC/LYM member ever wrote any piece of music (except some timid attempts from Jonathan T). I remember once a German member wrote something that was played at an iclc conference but he soon was patronized and criticised by "expert" Anno Hellenbroich. Creativity isn't welcome because it requires freedom.

Have a look at this extraordinary little film about mind control and... "how to start a cult"! it ll ring a very serious bell!!!


Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 2:50 pm:

and that s a link about Bruce Director trying to intimidate the British MPs who signed for the Early Day Motion to discuss the Duggan case at the House of Commons

sanchoPosted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 2:54 pm:

I guess LaRouche is really playing to the Putin crowd now - this just floored me:

I was doing some studying, and I was studied up on Stalin and they say what he was doing, was calculating catastrophic mistakes. And I would like to ask Mr. LaRouche about that, and also what he thinks about racism, and how they handle racism now?

LaRouche: It was Stalin, you're talking about Josef Stalin?


LaRouche: Okay, there was just a little confusion. No, Stalin was Stalin. He was actually provoked—he was what he was. That's a long story, but he was what he was. But at the end of the war, he was provoked. He had no intention of attacking anybody at that point. His intention at that point was to take a country which had lost a tremendous amount of life, at that point, and build it. But he was provoked. And when he provoked, his nasty side really came out, and we got ourselves into a mess. He beat us, in terms of getting an effective arsenal of nuclear weapons. He beat us in getting a thermonuclear weapon. For that reason, they dumped Truman, because Truman's idea didn't work. And he went on and the Soviet system produced some very classy qualities of modern technological weaponry with a very poor economy.

So we could have dealt with that in a completely different way, if Roosevelt had lived. But then, when you make somebody nasty, they get nasty, and don't complain if they get nasty if you made them so."

And then from the same interview there's this whopping lie:

"Q: I'm a truck driver, and I'm one of your faithful listeners. I had this white driver gave me a tape and some literature with Mr. LaRouche's name on it. The farthest I get to reading that literature, it was about the Rothschilds, you know, and who was behind the race riots of the '60s and stuff like this. I had this information over a year, and I haven't really had a chance to really look at it. Can he elaborate on that literature that that guy gave me?

LaRouche: I'm not sure what you're referring to. It's a little bit of a problem. We mention a lot of names and a lot of things in the things we publish, but I don't know in what context it was said, or what the issue was.

Well, I think the issue was, like a one-world government and everything's perfect. But, Mr. Ambrose, if you want me to fax you some of that information, I will. I just haven't had a chance to go through it. It was something like—I thought it was one of those far-right leaflets.

LaRouche: No, no. You won't find far-right around me. The far-right don't like me one bit. They don't like what I write, either."


Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 2:56 pm:

But what would a Lyn interview be without a liberal dash of healthy megalomania:

"Q: Okay, I'd like to ask you a couple more quick questions so someone else can get in here. I can get them in here. Can you comment on the problem that went down between you and George Bush Sr.? The conflict that went on between you and him?

LaRouche: Yeah, sure. It was big. George came after me. He didn't like me when he was CIA director, because I was on on the other side of the CIA factions, at that point. I was much more traditional. And then George came after me. I was running for President, for the nomination for President as a Democrat. He was running as a Republican. And his campaign began to do dirty tricks against my campaign. I said, "George, cut it out. Tell your people to get off it. Otherwise, I'm going to have to take you on." So I, in a sense I destroyed him. He otherwise destroyed himself. I exposed his involvement with the Skull and Bones operation, but, more importantly, with the Trilateral Commission operation, because people at that point were very unhappy. Because the Trilateral Commission had ruined the United States....

Lane: Lyndon, Lyndon, I know you've got to go. And thank you so much for being with us all the way from Germany. And we're going to have to have you again.

LaRouche: Well, it's good. All right. Thank you. See you."

This character is too much.

realmePosted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 6:49 pm:

Shadok said, "No ICLC/LC/LYM member ever wrote any piece of music."

Claudia G., AKA Claudia A., a marginal member at best because she was flaky, not in a LaRouche-flaky way but her own flaky way, composed several Lieder while still a member. She had a nice voice and sang them herself at certain LC events, but not much was made of her efforts because she wasn't tight with the John S./Kathy W. music mafia. Note that neither John nor Kathy nor any of those music wannabees ever composed a single note.

Later, after she quit, Claudia became an accomplished poet and poetry editor in the real world. I went to one of her readings at a bookstore some years ago. Her poetry didn't appeal to my taste, but so what? At least she writes real poetry.

You see, Brewncue and others, nothing gets done while under LaRouche's thumb, but once you quit you have half a chance to become a real person and compose music and write poetry instead of just blathering about what dead people on LaRouche's approved list did 150 years ago.


Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 8:00 pm:

We are going to show our readers how a madman or mad woman can issue a memo about Kronberg's widow giving several hundred dollars to the Republican party with a straight face as being the cause of Ken Kronberg's death. I had to reread that memo a few times and wonder exactly how much booze do the remaining NEC and NC have to consume to erase their memory cells. We know they erased their dignity and honesty a few decades ago when they began to hijack funds from the elderly.

Forget the yutes cause their parents were not even dating in the 1970s certian things occured.

OK, Nancy, Gerry, Tony, Jeff, Dennis, Larry, Debbie, Harley, Phil , Small and a few others read that memo and nod their heads in unison with Lyn. They read that memo and continue their worship of Lyn and go to sleep without a worry.

The WABAC machine has been busy and has some funny things to report to the yutes and the rest of the gang as to who is THE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY in the LC in both funds and support.

Why Lyn of course!!

Let us all set the WABAC Machine to 1976 when we ran Lyn for president as a US Labor Party candidate. Almost everyone in Leesburg and every current leader in the LC at this time. In the course of our organising there is a word being used to describe very conservative thinking Republicans in the Mid West, Texas and far West. We called thse people "Yahoos" and they were on our briefing networks and we would call them up about the Trilateral Commission, the CFR, the Bilderbergers and of course the Rockefellers. Our 1976 campaign for some people was a let down because after all, the LC was supposed to be THE Communist hegemonic power committed to socialism. What our 1976 campaign was about was going after Jimmy Carter and pulling for Gerald Ford to win.

Now how did we get to that stage?

Go back a few years and you will find that we had regular conversations with a yahoo from Wyoming named Dick Cheney! The person you want to ask in Leesburg is Susan Kokinda who according to a few former leaders in the LC was her "contact". If you look back at who were our major enemies in all of the publications you find these people.

Nelson Rockefeller
Henry Kissinger
James Schlesinger.

All were in the Ford cabinet .

Who were Dick Cheney's target of anger?

Nelson Rockefeller
Henry Kissinger
James Schlesinger.

In the LC we had many people who were calling conservatives and attempting to portray Lyn as the anti Trilat leader while the whole Marxist charade which Lyn used to recruit on college campuses in the late 1960s and early 1970s was hidden in the basement for ever. All of sudden we were now "American System" clean cut anti Trilat/CFR leaders. In NS we wrote many articles about the CIA and who was to blame for it's demise.

Another of our contacts supposedly was also a very young Donald Rumsfeld.


Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 8:01 pm:

Understand that this is going on without many members knowing it. We had a very primitive fundraising operation going where we would meet with these people and bulk sale our special reports about the Trilats/CFR and other conspiracy theory favorites.

The difference between the rationale and the insane usually involves Lyn. While we had local meetings with Yahoos, as soon as you brought Lyn to the party, it was over. Lyn bgane to imagine that he was the king pin and he was gthe real power. In 1975 when Gerald Ford fired parts of his cabinet in what was called "The Halloween Mssacre", Lyn began a delusionary spiral into darkness where he firmly beleived that he was now running the USA.

Now what happened after The Haloween Massacre? James Shlesinger was fired, Colby was out at the CIA, Kissinger was off the NSA and Nelson Rockefeller was no longer a lock for the VP slot in 1976.

Now who benefitted and what did Lyn committ the LC to supprting? Why a young Yahoo named Dick Cheney became the Chief of Staff Rumsfeld became Defense Sec. and George Bush Sr became the CIA head.

At this time in the regional offices we were told that Lyn is now leading a force of Yahoos and Military people who are secretly supporting us.

During the 1976 campaign our sole purpose was to turn voters against Jimmy Carter and we purchased antional TV time with a 15 minute spot a week or so before the election and a 1/2 hour spot the night before. The theme was

"Pulling the lever for Carter will triger Thermo Nuclear war".

Carter won the election and now the next step occured in our support of the Rpeblican party. There are always going to be election day problems. This time Lyn in the election night meeting in the national office said that the election was stolen. Not only were his millions of votes stolen, but they were given to Carter and thus Gerald Ford was the true winner. This was brilliant by Lyn because it both saved face for our vote totals and then let us start to really raise money and work with republicans. We put out brief after brief about the Trilat cabinet of Cater culminating with waht was callet the "PIT Brief" or "Carter and the Party of International Terror". Now our enemies were Ramsey Clark, IPS , CounterPunch and other assorted leftists. We began to really boil conservative phone lists we were given to raise money and we also did something very few people remember.

The day after the 1976 election we urged the Ford people to challenge the results and go to court in several states to overturn the election. In Michigan we had a local in Grand Rapids set up and soome of our people were on the phone with Ford's brothers urging them to get the election challenged. Among the local Detroit leaders I was told were involved were Art and Pidge. This is really very cloudy history because Detroit was run by Ken Dalto who had his own cult of personality going and ran a slick operation with all sorts of people you can read about in the King Book.

In several states we started lawsuits with Republicans and Conservative Party members to overturn the election due to vote fraud. Lyn had the LC set up a Legal Fund where everyone I mentioned at the beginning RAISED MONEY FOR THIS. You can't pretend this did not exist. Go ask them how much money they raised in their locals to fund this. We did this with Republicans when Ford did not want to challenge the results.


Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 8:02 pm:

Needless to say, there is a whole history of Lyn, the LC and mobsters with bags of cash to buy an election and to pay a loan shark which will eventually be explained.

Our sole existance for being was to support what ever the Yahoos asked us to do which was to usually screw the Dem party. Running Lyn as a Democrat was a great way to do damage internally as Lyn's loonyness was now being used by many people. You see, we could print and do dirty tricks in an untraceble way where anyone else would be sued for slander. We could put out leafletts, find dirt and buy TV time and say the most outrageous things and get away with it, for a while.

Where this all falls apart and becomes a farce is as usuall, all about Lyn. What typically happens is that we can send some of our talented people to meet with specialists and gather info and provide info we picked up. At a certian point we had meetings with friends of friends which led to meetings in places like LA, Michigan, Texas, Atlanta, East Side NYC and DC with pretty high up think tank people. What always happened is that Lyn demanded to be the main focis of these meetings as of course, he ran the USA! In every case where he met a normal person, they would immediately figure out that Lyn was bonkers with massive delusions and quietly exit the meeting. The contact would tell his staff to never let us back in while Lyn would further feel that this proves that he is part of "The Privy Council" running the USA.

The full story is maybe some day going to come out, and it will be a doozy, worthy of the best scam artist hall of fame honors. Along the way in our doing dirty work for the GOP somethign happened where Lyn and the LC security staff were handed off to a whole circus of anti semites in the Liberty Lobby and a guy named Mitch Werbell. At this time we droped Rocky and the Trilats and started up with the British and became much more vocal in the Holocaust lunacy and supporting virtually any WW 2 Nazi as a "patriot".

Along the time frame we now have Lyn being really profiled as a paranoid nutcase who has sucker written all over him. How much Jeff and Paul G contributed to this whole episode is for them to discuss with you members.

Molly gives a few hundred to the GOP, how much did Lyn give in CASH and property besides committing all of the LC manpower and resources to screwing the Dem Party and supporting the Republican party????

If you can, email or walk into the legal office of Babara and George and ask for THE transcripts of the Va trials. You know, those transcripts which never seemed to make it to the LC and in the books published about the cult's innocence. In THOSE transcripts are pages and pages of testimony by then Gov witness Rick McGraw. A person was meeting with Lyn, Jeff and Paul all of the ime who was called "The Major". The Major named Murdock or soemthing like that and played Lyn like a C=256 tuned instrument. The Major was presented as a CIA agent/liason to Lyn who would consult with Lyn about National Security issues and would relay Lyn's important multi hundred page drafts to "The Privy Council" which Lyn was now part of. Along the way, the Major would warn Lyn of many assination plots which he could avert, but that would cost money of course. There was no way the USA CIA could officially protect Lyn with taxpay er funds and since Lyn was so crucial to US National Security, he would have to figure out how to pay for it himself.


Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 8:03 pm:

The project was called "SOVA" or Southern Virginia and involved McGraw collecting cash to give to The Major. We also got involved in a land purchase where I was told he ended up with a Farm we paid for. The farm was a joint LC security / The Major project which used the cover of a farm. I was told that The Major came back to ask for more money to stock the farm with animals so as to make it a real good CIA/LC cover and not raise eyebrows.

The grand total from THE transcripts shows that somewhere between 8 to 11 MILLION dollars went to this scam. Lyn and the boys were so delusional that they beleived that the CIA of Bush Sr and Cheney actually working with them in promoting Lyn in his Leesburg move to be close to the White House of Reagan!

The defense strategy by Lyn it seems was to make these payments come out during the trials to prove that Lyn is part of the CIA and that the only reason he was on trial was because the enemies of the CIA - The British, ANTI SDI Dems were were going after him.

Indeed, when I was in the LC I would here a lot of talk about how the CIA was going to get all of the indictments squashed.

Excuse me for a second as I have to laugh hysterically after typing this. Lyn in essence gave what he thought was the CIA anywhere from 8 to 11 million dollars in a scam operation with tax free cash which not even a Hollywood writer on a coke high could imagine.

Please ask your local NCs and THREE DECADE card table shriners about our work with the Ford election team. Then ask about how all of that cash was accounted for. Go to legal and ask for THE transcripts.

As a bonus, you will find out about the cash we sent to Boston to repay a loan shark for money we borrowed to "buy" the 1980 New Hampshire prinmary.

Of course what you read here is subject to refinement and change. Very few people have the full story and a few have parts of the story.

Keep on inhaling those carcinogens for Lyn yutes. The weekly budget still has a section for certain cash payments each week.


Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 9:38 pm:

To refresh everyone's memory. Here are a few pages of our joint lawsuit with the Republican and Conservative Parties in NY State to overturn the 1976 election of Jimmy Carter.

Ask the legal staff for the rest of this as it is quite a large file to post here.

Then ask for the guesstimate of how much money we raised to help the GOP and how much LC resources Lyn committed the LC for this .

Warren DONOHUE, Sandra Weissman, Valda Bramwell, Roy G. Vanasco, John T. Stewart, Nicholas A. Long, Lyndon LaRouche, the Rockland County Conservative Party, and the Labor Party, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF the STATE OF NEW YORK, Board of Elections of the City of New York, Secretary of the State of New York, Betty Dolan, and Hugh Carey, Defendants

No. 76 C 2142


435 F. Supp. 957; 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11966

December 7, 1976

COUNSEL: [**1] David S. Heller, New York, New York, Heller, Kleinman, Wray, Wagner & Tabakman, New City, New York, for plaintiffs; David M. Wagner, New City, New York, of counsel.

W. Bernard Richland, Corp. Counsel for the City of New York, New York, New York, for defendant Bd. of Elections for the City of New York; Mark Schwartz, of counsel.

David E. Blabey, Sp. Counsel, New York, New York, Edward R. Patrick, Deputy Counsel, Albany, New York, for defendant New York State Bd. of Elections.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, New York, New York, for defendants Hon. Hugh Carey, Governor of the State of New York, and the Secretary of State of the State of New York; A. Seth Greenwald, New York, New York, of counsel.

JUDGES: Mishler, Chief Judge.



[*960] Memorandum of Decision and Order

MISHLER, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs, who include Republican and Conservative Party supporters of President Ford, and members of the Labor Party, bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3) and 1988 1 seeking an order: [*961] (1) enjoining the Secretary of the State of New York and the Governor from certifying the Democratic Presidential electors; (2) declaring [**2] the Presidential election conducted in New York on November 2, 1976, null and void; and (3) directing that a new election be held. Plaintiffs allege that state officials, acting under the color of state law, committed fraudulent acts in the conduct of voter registration and the subsequent general Presidential election which served to deprive them of their constitutionally protected right to vote. Plaintiffs also assert a claim premised upon a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, 2 arguing that jurisdiction is conferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). That claim, couched in general terms, is that the ballots cast by legitimate voters were debased and diluted by the illegal votes cast by thousands of unqualified voters.

Now you understand why we shifted people out of USLP locals into Republican/Yahoo areas of potential money in LA, Texas, Atlanta and went to Airports in Denver, St Louis and other areas to make Yahoo contacts for the boiler room.


Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 11:57 pm:

Wow, xlcr4life, I knew parts of that story, but not all of it. I clearly remember our raising money to get Lyn's half-hour ad on election eve against Carter, and then working with right-wing Republicans to try to challenge the election in a number of states, and our claiming there was vote fraud.

Then, during the Carter years, it wasn't just Carter, it was the most progressive Democrats, starting with Ted Kennedy, who were on our sh*t list. Then, when Reagan won, and Judge Webster became, wasn't he the head of Reagan's National Security Council, and he actually liked LaRouche, until he was sacked after about two years in office, as I recollect it (I wonder if that was why, or part of the reason why), we thought we were really on the inside track. As the Sandinistas came to power in Nicaragua, I'm trying to remember how that played out, since Mitch Werbell was, of course, part of the anti-leftist apparatus, but I recall that we claimed to have convinced him to not be opposed to the Sandinistas, but it's all a but fuzzy.

But then, in 1984, I remember clearly that we opposed Mondale as a fascist, and we somehow linked him to the FBI, and callted them both fascists. We clearly supported Reagan in both elections. And then the legal attacks came, and the trial, just around the time of the run-up to the 1988 election. Did we call Dukakis a fascist too? We clearly supported Bush, and expected him (at least, LaRouche expected him) to intervene and save him from prison. And when he did no such thing (what a shock!), the Security faction (Jeff, Paul et al) went into sudden free fall from grace, and the Catholic faction suddenly was elevated, Lyn went to Rome shortly before he was sentenced, attended the wedding in the Vatican of Louis duPont, and began relying on the Pope to save him.

In the summer of 1992, in the run-up to the election, in the summer of 1992, around the time of the Democratic Convention, Clinton was labeled, in an article by LaRouche, and in the EIR and New Fed, as a "southern fried fascist." Clinton was not seen positively--I guess we didn't endorse anyone that year, since I don't think we were backing Bush--I know we were individually rooting for Ross Perot--until after he was inaugurated. There was some relatively insignificant thing that Clinton did or said vis-a-vis the Britihs, presumably Major, I think he was still in power--that LaRouche hailed as Clinton breaking with the British, and from that moment on, the "line" on Clinton became strongly positive, and it has stayed there ever since. No matter that Clinton was as strong a free-trader and NAFTA supporter as he oculd be (rationalized as "he doesn't really believe it, but he feels he must go along"--what hogwash), that he did nothing for weeks after the beginning of the genocide in Rwanda (or rather, worse than nothing--he prohibited the U.S. from letting it be labeled genocide so the UN was hamstrung), etc., etc. Clinton was straight DLC, and still is, but he is the darling of the LaRouche Movement.


Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 11:59 pm:

So, poor Molly got stuck in a timewarp, she missed the early 1993 flip-flop, and stayed a Republican, as LaRouche had been for 15 years. Ah, the LaRouche the LYM will never know. LYM members, if history is important, as LaRouche makes out it is, HIS history is vitally important for you. You have a good right to ask, why didn't these dramatic flipflops bother us, as we experienced them. But beware the answer. The answer is, we thought just like you think now--we simply ignored the evidence before our eyes, with the same rationalizations you have now. Wasn't it Marx who said that Hegel observes that history tends to repeat itself, but that he forgot to add that the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Our experience was the tragedy. With our experience before you, your time will be the farce, if you don't learn the lesson we are trying to pass on to you before wasting some of the best years of your life. Look, you only get one shot at this game called life. The less of it you waste in a cause you will later regret, the more you will have to realize yourselves in. I've got so many fewer years left than you have to do whatever I can with my life, because of the nearly quarter century I wasted there. Just to complete the quotations for the night, it was Santayana, I believe, who said that those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Please learn from this.

And ask yourselves. How could LaRouche have gone from being a Marxist overnight during 1974 to hanging out with the far-right wing of the U.S. political spectrum, such as the Liberty Lobby, attack the more progressive of the Democrats as fascists, strongly support Reagan twice, and then flipflop and support the DLC member Clinton for 8 years? What sense does that trajectory make? And then to attack Molly Kronberg for driving Ken to suicide because she continued to back Republicans through 2004?


Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 1:17 am:

The least Leesburg could do is publish a nice spread sheet of who got what and when via Lyn, Jeff, Paul, Rick and others. It is hard to figure out who got what out of the 8 to 11 million in supposed cash which was handed out.

Between Carpet, Mr. Ed, Roy, Frick and Frack you need a Larouche Program to keep score.

How about it Lyn? A program all of us here can support and widely distribute , free of charge.

After that we need a local map of all of the Leesburg Real Estate properties Fearless Leader controlled via our companies which of course was lost when you are the world's greatest economist. This would be a sort of Beverly Hills type map of the Stars for Leesburg tourists.

Still later we can reopen the book store on King Street as "Larouche's Believe it or not Museum". The feature could be a wax dummy of Lyn and Jim Bakker in a prison cell . Will Wertz could have a cameo as Lyn's prison B***h.

Another exhibit could say:

"Lyndon H Larouche Jr was treated for colon polyps and had his cult issue a press release that the colonoscopy in prison to treat him was in reality, an assasination attempt"

"Believe it or not"

Believe it, of course that was true .

(Message edited by xlcr4life on August 26, 2007)


Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 1:31 am:


I would like to propose sort of a non-competitive contest: Let's see how complete a picture we can compile of LaRouche forecasts, from the late '60s to the present. Since he is publishing that a) some Boomers are doubting his claims to have never made a wrong forecast, and b) that he has never, in fact, been wrong in a forecast, I think it might be instructive to all to list, eventually with citations as to date and location, as many of these forecasts as we can collectively come up with. Just from memory, I have the following to start us off, even though several need documentation and precise dates, which I don't have on hand. So, can everyone please comb their brains, and their archives, and let's see how many we can put together. And if all you have is a general sense of one, put it out, as I have done, in hopes that others can fill it in. So here's my list, which I know is vastly incomplete, and imprecise in some cases, but I want to start this off.

• 1972: England was going to go fascist within the year
• Early 1988, after the stock market crash: this was the beginning of a 1929-style crash, and this was put on TV in one of his presidential commercials
• Spring, 1994: the total implosion of the U.S. financial system would happen most likely in a few weeks, might possibly hold off until the end of 1994, but absolutely without fail would occur before the end of Clinton's first term
• Feb. 28, 1995: the bankruptcy of Britain's Barings Bank the day before was the beginning of the end, this failure of Britain's premiere bank, the Queen's bank, would bring down the whole system. It was a headline in the first issue of New Fed after Feb. 27 that announced this (can anyone find the exact headline)
• About 2001, in the summer: a forecast that the "smart money" knew the big crash was coming, and they were going heavily into commodities, and that Weimar-style hyper-inflation was on its way
• Early 2006, in the Jan. 11 webcast, he forecast an absolute financial meltdown for that year


Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 3:02 am:

And while people are wracking their brains, I would love to tap your collective recollections of two more types of items that I think it is useful to list in as complete a form as possible. The first is LaRouche's list of enemy of the day (hmmm, could it have been modeled on Queen for a Day?). Meaning, the major targets of the day. This suggested itself to me on reading Eaglebeak's correct observation that LaRouche has no attention span. This is even true in whom he chooses to say is the evil incarnate at any particular time. The value in this list, for LYMers in particular, is to realize the absurdity of the entire list, since if it keeps changing, without warning or explanation, by the way, then clearly at any point in time, all of the earlier villains, who in most cases still exist, were evidently not the right guys to go after. If LaRouche was correct, say, to go after the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Society in the last 1970s, why then did that fade and get dropped, without any discussion of why, at some point a few years later? Surely they weren't defeated? Where did they go? Why did we drop our campaign against them?

When the long succession of "enemies" is lined up end to end, in chronological order, I think a powerful point is made to LYM members. By the way, LYM members, surely you recall just a few short weeks ago how the campaign on the BAE was to the be all-consuming activity for the foreseeable future, the key to bring down the whole rotten edifice. Where is that campaign now? LaRouche doesn't mention it even once in his 50 page paper on "the end of our delusion." Neither does he mention synarchy, the broader name for evil he has used for the past several years. Where did these enemies go? Surely they were not defeated. So why did LaRouche drop all reference to synarchy in recent months? That ought to strike any member as extremely strange.

Hence, my suggestion that we compile this list, to drive home how ridiculous every "enemy du jour" is. So, here is my best attempt. For some reason, I remember many of the leading enemies campaigns of the '70s, and some of those in the post-2000 period, but I am largely drawing a blank on the '80s and '90s. So please help me fill in this list. Here's what I have so far:

Until 1973: Capitalism
1968: Ford Foundation, "poverty pimps"
Jan. 2004-? Rockefeller
1974 on: Tavistock
1975?: Harriman-Ball faction
1975: Hilex 75
1974: The British Round Table (Quigley book, etc.)
Mid-'70s: Felix Rohatyn
Mid-'70s- ??: The ADL
Late '70s: Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger Society
Late '70s: Dope, Inc. drug lobby
Late '70s: Carter Administration and the Party of International Terror (PIT Brief)
Late '70s: Ted Kennedy
1994: Club of the Isles, WWF, national partks (as training grounds for terrorists)
?? – present: Congress of Cultural Freedom
2005: Leo Strauss
2005-2007: synarchy
2005-present: Baby Boomer generation
2005-2007: Cheney et al as the Children of Satan
Spring, 2007: BAE


Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 3:51 am:

My final request is for us to compile a list of the major "great projects" type of nostrums that LaRouche has presented over the years. Here, I see a different kind of interest. That is, it is here that I find, at least, some of the most positive things that LaRouche has ever stood for and advocated. Some of these projects still should be done, in my opinion. What's interesting for LYM members to see is how LaRouche cannot stay with anything for very long. No matter that it never gets done. It's one thing, and then suddenly, it's no longer mentioned, and something else has come up to take its place.

So, this list, which will probably be much shorter than the others, is I think valuable first for showing how a) when he had good ideas for major infrastructure projects around the world, he dropped them for something new after some period of time, and b) how in some instances, his projects were really of at best of marginal value, or in some cases outright stupid, certainly as world priorities. Here, I suspect I have already thought of a majority of them at least, but again, please fill in what I've left out.

1971: Emergency Reconstruction Program (not a bad inventory of useful investments)
Early '70s: World development bank
Early 70s: India water project—linking all of India's great rivers with canals
Mid-'70s: Great projects—India, Africa, Latin America
?? (late '70s?): NAWAPA (bringing fresh water from northern Alaska to Colorado R. basin)
Early '80s: Kra Canal (canal across the neck of Thailand)
Mid-'80s: Ibero-American development program (water, rail and power projects)
Early '90s: Productive Triangle in Europe
Late '90s-present: "Land-bridge" across central Asia
2007: Bering Straits bridge
Intermittent during 2000's: US Infrastructure rebuilding
2007: Save the auto industry by converting it

His project for India water was probably overkill, but some version is probably still needed; his project for diverting water into the Sahel is probably sound, at least in principle, since, if there is excess water in central Africa, it needs to get to the drought areas; the Ibero-American development program had a lot of good ideas for water and rail projects; the European Productive Triangle concept I thought then, and I still think, was a wonderful idea, a great way to jumpstart the economies of the newly liberated Eastern European countries; rebuilding U.S. infrastructure is desperately needed; as is saving what remains of our auto industry.

Of marginal use was the Kra Canal, which simply didn't save enough time, and hence money, to make it economically viable; and NAWAPA was overkill, with enormous environmental impact and probably damage, but it was, of course, devised by Parsons company, not LaRouche, and I suspect that a mini-NAWAPA will be needed to bring water south to California from the Columbia River in Washington State, given the deepening drought there. Saving the auto industry in order to save the skills of American skilled machinery workers is also a very good idea.


Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 3:57 am:

The crackpot ideas are the so-called "land bridge" mallarkey, and this latest on a Bering Straits bridge. These two areas are about the least populated in the world. Why, in heaven's name, would it be such a priority for the entire world, to invest in a new southern route for the Trans-Siberian railway, and develop mainly raw materials out of the project. When 3 billion people are in desperate need of investments in urban housing, water, sanitation and mass transit? Why isn't a massive city building and rebuilding campaign not the constant of LaRouche's great projects, where billions would be the beneficiaries. I have never even begun to understand the rationale for this absurdly misnomered "great project." And the Bering Straits bridge, yeah, sounds nice, but realistically, won't the economic benefit be marginal at best? It certainly won't help hardly any actual people, since there are so incredibly few people who live on either side of the proposed bridge.

So, folks, what projects of this type have I left out. I know I've left out several instances of calls for major nuclear plant construction, led by Marsha, and for Mid-east desalination, at various points. Can anyone date these, and help me with anything else. Thanks.


Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 4:56 am:

Don't forget this year's retro forecast that the collapse has already occurred.

There was a frantic mobilization c.1979 around the situation in Vietnam: we were told WW III was imminent, i.e. that thermonuclear war would start in a matter of hours. That would be another list: predictions of WW III. I don't think such predictions have been made since the eighties, but they were briefing fare as standard as the economic chicken-littlism. At least the Jehovah's Witnesses have only predicted the end of the world four times, so they appear a tad more rational than our boy Windy Lyndy. Wasn't WW III supposed to start in 1982 after the deployment of the Pershing missiles in West Germany?

LYMers, if any of LaRouche's predictions had come true, the earth would be a dust bowl. The only economic collapse that has taken place is your own. If you want a prediction of your future, just take a look at your "boomer" comrades.


Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 9:18 am:

"If LaRouche was correct, say, to go after the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Society in the last 1970s, why then did that fade and get dropped, without any discussion of why, at some point a few years later? Surely they weren't defeated? Where did they go? Why did we drop our campaign against them? "

LTruth, Lyn is very cunning in how he does this. The whole history of the LC is in LYN causing short attenton spans on THE MEMBERS. There are endless mobilizations which get dropped and repleaced with another and another and another.

The only common policy seems to have been Lyn's transfer of cash made by his sweat shop boiler rooms and regions to several delusion dealers which feed Lyn's delusion habit.

Lyn appears to be no different than a crack addict who needs to inject an everincreasing concentration of delusions into the corotid arteries feeding his brain. Like a junkie with an ATM card, he will drain the LC/LYM in a frenzy to keep the delusions going.

As far as the Tirlats and Bilderbergs go. Consider Lyn's new friend in Italy, former Italian Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti. Tremonti is a member of the Trilateral Commission and the Aspen Institute Italia. He is part of every evil Lyn had the entire LC organising against for decades.

I will tell you what his answer may be. "See, I am now running the world with the elites"

Key word in any friend of Lyn is "FORMER" in front of their name.

ALL of what Lyn claims as his was found by the Asia staff when they read magazines issued by The MItsubishi Heavy Industry Group.

I posted a link a while ago where you could see where Lyn absconded with MRI's word wide projects and claimed them as his. Kra canal, Euro trains, Mid East desalinization, Panama canal, it's all there.

Lyn and the cult keep their yaps shut about MRI today becuase much of its work is on reducing pollutants, global warming, recycling, green energy production and things which do not exist in the Bizarro world.

In your list of predictions by Fearless Leader, do not forget a speech in Reston Va in the early 1980s where he said that at this very moment, East bloc tanks are crossing the borders as part of our "Global Showdown" mobe.

realmePosted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 10:50 am:

Re: LaRouche's forecasts:

The prediction of fascism in England I believe was in 1973 or early 1974. If I remember correctly, there was a coal miners' strike which left the UK with a shortage of heat and electricity in mid-winter. Then in the first half of '74 something happened at Heathrow. Maybe a terrorist attack? I can't remember, even though I "organized" in the street about it.

And of course, let's not forget MC14-4 in May or June 1974. (Was this a precursor to HILEX 75?) Unless NATO changed some policy regarding missile deployment in Europe, there would be nuclear war in 30 days. I'm fairly certain that there was no nuclear war in 1974. And yet, when 30 days was up, we went on "organizing" as if nothing happened. Amazing!

As for L's enemy du jour: don't forget the Knights of Malta and something else (Templars?) in the mid- to late-70s. Oh yeah, the Black Guelph too.

Maybe we can get all this information from looking at the pathology report from L's prison colonoscopy.


Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 12:33 pm:

Ralme, at the time you describe us mobilizing about fascism in Britain there were giant NS headlines for. We went from UE centers, to plant shift changes to evening walking tours with NS featuring bold headlines about saving the British pound and why we must dump the dollar.

The solution was a convertible ruble which would foster our "IDB" mini campaigner sales. The IDB in turn, along with the convertible Ruble would Judo Rocky's slave labor mining shale oil in Colorado, shipped there by the fascist Humprhey-Hawkins employment bill, which in turn used methadone clinic lumpenized inner city as a labor supply to make David Rockefeller and Chase Manhattan bank the rulers of the world in between the Rockeffllers promoting Nuclear war via MC14/4 first and later , after we stopped nuclear war, Hilex while in the middle of this Lyn was busy deporgramming Members in both Europe and the USA who were sent by the CIA/East Bloc to assasinate Lyn with Cuban Frogman emerging form the Hudson river to a NYC now run by Felix Rohatyn and BIC MAC into a new depopulated Manhattan, controled by a lesbian conspiracy led by Bella Abzug to stop Tony Chaitkin from becoming Mayor which led to the next plan to deindustrialize the USA by the formation of FEMA which then created the Three Mile Island meltdown which being in Pennsylvania , home of the Quakers began to plot the assination of Lyn via a secret telex to Venice where the Knights of Malta forwarded the message to St John's Cathedral in NYC where Margaret Meade recieved the call on a party line connected to the ADL which ultimately caused Lyn to send 8 to 11 million dollars to his delusion dealers who then gave it to the CIA which is why Lyn was now in Gethesmane on his knees wondering how can he keep this bizarro world going in perpetuity with a straight face.

No wonder in Leesburg the way to call a mass meeting is to have it at a liquor store parking lot instead of the Sycolin office. The only other meetings with members is at funerals.

Yutes, this is your Messiah, instead of inscense you can breathe in exhaust fumes and then worship at a card table shrine before singing for spare change on street corners.


Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 2:42 pm:

I just discovered that I still had the original, 1978 edition of Dope, Inc. I had been consulting a later reprint, actually, from 1992, it turns out. Did we republish it at all in between these two dates, does anyone know? Anyway, the two books are almost completely different. The 1992 reprint is 50% longer, but is also completely restructured in terms of its chapters and major parts. I didn't take the time to see how similar some of the actual text might be, but given the huge variation in chapters, it appears that the later edition is virtually a total rewrite. I had forgotten that.

Anyway perusing the 1978 version, sure enough, the Protocols item was there. So was a lot of other stuff that I had forgotten about. In addition to everything recollected so far on our enemies list of the time, the chapter that mentions the B'nai Brith was set up before the Civil War by the Rothschilds, and that in 1870s or 1880s, a group called the Order of Zion was set up by them. It then goes through the entire supposed lineage by which the Rothschilds created Hitler, financed him, etc. And here is where it says, in Rumania, there was a secret society that produced the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was intercepted by the Okhrana (czarist secret police) and published.

Elsewhere in the book, there is lengthy coverage of a whole nexus of enemy groups no one has mentioned yet in response to my post from last night: the freemasons, especially the Scottish Rite, the Italian P2, the Illuminati, etc. Oh, and the first edition of Dope, Inc., unlike the second edition, is extensively footnoted, so that in principle, if some one had nothing better to do with their life, they could track down these footnotes and see if there was anything to any of this.

Out of curiosity, I tried to see if I could find the Order of Zion on the web, and lo and behold, I was brought right into the center of a nest of Illuminati conpiracy buffs. I even found three websites discussing this stuff that quoted Dope, Inc., as their authority for the creation of an Order of Zion as part of B'nai Brith after the Civil War. But there were other Orders of Zion tied up with the Templars, and later the freemasons, and I couldn't find any reference to a U.S. group by that name in the 19th century. But, then, I didn't do an exhaustive search, nor follow up on Dope, Inc's footnotes.

My reason for bringing all this up now is to confront the LYM members with the real issue for them: if the stuff put into Dope, Inc. (first edition), was true when the book was written, then it is still true today, the Scottish Rite Freemasons are still a major danger, along with P2, all the stuff about who backed Hitler (his latest take on that puts the blame on Lazard Freres and Andre Mayer, not the Rothschilds, as he used to do). So, was LaRouche wrong in 1978, and if so, doesn't that demonstrate that he can be off the wall wrong? Or if he was right then, then why did he drop discussion of these true issues? You can't have it both ways. Since he never claims that later versions of who "the enemy" is supercede and correct earlier versions, he can't be let off the hook this way. He simply quietly drops reference to previous enemies, and digs out a new one. Again, let me ask, what happened to synarchy? Even to BAE? There is something, LYMers, about this progression that should profoundly bother you.


Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 4:13 pm:

Is the "Conceptual History of the Labor Committees" anywhere online? I'm looking through old NY Time artciles about the Columbia University strike circa 1968, squinting to try to see any ghostly images of one "Lyn Marcus" (one brief reference to Tony Papert! Though I do see the two factions of SDS -- "Action Faction" and "Praxis Axis", as he named them... and why his little clique was appealing in comparison with them), and that "Conceptual History" I'd imagine covers his self-proported role circa 1974.


Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 5:16 pm:

Howie, go to the LYM web site and many campaigners and special reports are there in PDF form.

what is always interesting is which ones are not.

Put on a bow tie and smoke a pipe when you read the issues for that authentic aura.


Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 10:15 pm:

Bow ties, pipes, and "that authentic aura" of yesteryear/wonderland?

Drop some LSD too while you're at it.

And say hello to Alice.

Ask her about the frequency...

joesixpackPosted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 2:59 am:

hello gang...i am very much surprised that the kremlinologists here gathered have not yet mentioned a recent development in the larouche organization, one that may be most significant...those of you familiar with my posts may recall that i regularly monitor the audio file postings on the lym site, and over the last 2 or 3 weeks i am seeing helga promoted as never before...beginning with her august 11th appearance on the larouche show, she is represented half a dozen times: a speech before a cadre school on the 12th; an interview with jeff rense on the 13th; a speech to the ecuadoran lym on the 17th; a speech to a detroit cadre school on the 18th; and an appearance on the butch valdez show out of the phillipines on the 26th...

all of this, mind you, solo, without the same time frame no other member has appeared more than once in the audio files, and lyn, not at all...a situation without precedent over the last 3 or 4 years that i've been paying close attention to the group...

and, of course, perhaps even more significant than helga's sudden omnipresence is the absence of lyn..not one posting since august 4th, when he addressed an la cadre school...

incidentally, there are TWO postings from helga on that date, speaking before the mexican lym, one in english, the other in spanish...

so what is going on here? lyn sick?...are we witnessing a new leader, clawing her way to the top?...or is lyn simply pre-positioning helga to be the face of the movement when the other helga, hillary clinton, takes center stage?

your thoughts, citizens?


Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 7:04 am:

It was Helga's birthday on Saturday. Considering how the yutes are not doing "Sustainable Delpoyments" and Lyn still needs to feed his delusion habit, cash is tight.

You can give her a few weeks of the cult spotlight for no money down and then send her Gucci bags packing. I do not know if she brought her dogs with her on this trip. If she did, the yutes dropped down a notch in the pecking order and the food chain.

Maybe Lyn will bring his son Danny to run the show. Nawwwww. Lyn did not put his kid through his cult of personality and the LYM, that could be considered child abuse by some State agencies.

Looks like adopted son Jeff will be the heir and will face off against Helga for top dog. I do not think Jeff is ready for Helga's legendary beer farts to return with vengence.

On the other hand, you could also have something called "Weekend at Lyn's" with a stuffed Lyn being dragged around while someone writes LPAC press releases for years.

The technology does exist and we have it right here.

Just click on "More Memos" and you can post this as a LPAC release and no one will know the differense.


Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 8:27 am:

I found some interesting stuff on larouche and his former lawyer ramsey clark...

he is involved in an "impeach cheney" campaign (see at
but also to impeach gw bush, Condoleezza Rice, Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales!
This is not the first time that larouche's ex-lawyer's campaigns coincide with larouche's... Remember the anti-OSI (office of special investigations) from the US Justice department?
lar compared his case not only with socrates' trial or jesus' crucification but also with nazi war criminals like John Demjanjuk (!
Clark started campaigning (in 1986) against the OSI while defending war criminal Karl Linnas. This was before larouche's indictment! The org was then accusing the OSI for being a KGB operation to undermine the (larouche's) SDI.
earlier in 1983-4, lar friend Dr Winterberg took the defense of another Fusion Energy foundation friend, Arthur Rudolf who not only was a key scientist at the Peenemunde/Dora nazi concentration camp but was a defendor of this cheap schachtian slave labor solution to build the V2s and the atomic bomb...
R Clark was also the lawyer of Serbian genocidalists Milosevic and Karadic or Saddam Hussein dictator... and of course the lawyer of humanist genius Lyndon Larouche.


Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 10:22 am:

Joe Sixpack--

I agree completely. In fact, on the previous thread (LaRouche Continued 1), I had a modest post (actually, series of posts on Aug. 22) noting her sudden emergence and her appearance all over the place, from cadre school to interview to briefing lead to Amelia birthday saccharine, and wondering what had brought her to the U.S. --

I figured, as I think we all do (Joe Sixpack, XLCR, etc.), that this has to do with the succession fight. Helga doesn't have much to bring to the table from Europe--we assume--although some have suggested that she is still in touch with the former EEC/EC that dropped out last fall.

So perhaps that's why she needs to be in the U.S. right now? She has to contend with Jeff, who has the U.S. NEC, such as they are (and they barely are) in his corner, along with the legal department (which I previously described as tiny but hyperactive--and certainly essential for whatever comes next).

After all, without the legal department, what oomph would anyone (esp. European members) have in the insane battle the organization is waging against Erica Duggan?

So maybe Helga thinks she needs to be here to shore up her claims vis-a-vis Steinberg. Or maybe Steinberg has inveigled her here for murky oneupsmanship that we outsiders can't imagine.

Or maybe LaRouche is ill, which means the issue moves toward a crisis.

As to XLCR's "Weekend at Lindy's" theory, this makes sense--don't forget that after L. Ron Hubbard died, no Scientologist knew of the fact for years (except the tiny inner core). For all I know, they still don't.

After Lenin died, they mummified him and Pravda ran the banner "More Alive Than All the Living."

Maybe we could get that on New Federalist--except Oops! New Federalist is more dead than all the dead. But they could put the slogan on the websites.

Heck, LaRouche could run for President after all.... No one would suspect. Or care.


Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 10:50 am:

LaRouchetruth--the one additional thing I would say about LaRouche's ideas, or LaRouche's use of others' ideas, is that it becomes perfectly plain when you read LaRouche's characterizations of the ideas he is pirating, that he has never read a word of the philosopher, scientist, or other individual he is using.

He uses the same words to attack the "bad guys" year after year, but the "bad guys" change in an inchoate fashion--so that today Descartes may be nominalist, reductionist, Aristotelian, empiricist (Descartes??), etc.--but 30 years ago, he was a breakthrough philosopher and scientist, with his insistence on the primacy of clear and distinct impressions/ideas conveyed to the virtually self-subsisting ego.

(We can see why LaRouche might have been attracted to that. Cogito ergo sum, indeed.)

LaRouche has always been very big on the Self, when it's the right Self. Other selves--not so much.

But my point is that, while I agree with you that the same themes constantly recur, they are so misapplied as to be philosophically meaningless.

In politics, to get on LaRouche's good side you mostly have to pay attention to him. There was a time when LaRouche was sending mash notes to Margaret Thatcher for her courage in blasting Europe 2000 as an anti-nationalist globalist plot. Honestly--go back far enough, and you will find his open letter(s) to Maggie.

So I think there is less consistency and less "principle" there than first appears....


Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 11:36 am:

Helga's rise should create a market for the Teutonic impressionist on youtube. Funny I don't think anyone's ever done a LaRouche impression. If Helga's making a rise we should see increased polemics against American pragmatism and anti-intellectualism. I remember hearing Helga's proteges from Europe, like Leni Rubenstein, attacking American culture while praising European culture but it was always norther European or Aryan culture if you will. Lyn of course always hated the French, who he psychoanalyzed as being infatuated with "merde", just like he used to denounce the Hispanic and Italian culture as being dominated by the mother/whore infatuation.
On the great projects, there was an earlier program to convert the war industry (this was during the Vietnam War) to peacetime production and I think Steve Frasier became a big proponent of this, although it was first floated by a professor at Columbia U. whose name escapes me at the moment.


Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 11:48 am:

xlcr4life did a great synposis of the Republican shift although he left out some of the momentous history. For instance, on the one hand Lyn praised Reagan's invasion of Grenada and used it to attack Mondale as a Soviet agent, while on the other hand he denounced the invasion of Panama, calling Noriega a Platonic humanist and defender of Panamanian sovereignty. Of course he was right that Noriega was a CIA asset although he made the DEA very angry with his drug connections.
And let's not forget Lyn's support for the Peronists in Argentina during the Malvinas (Falkland Islands) War which became a focal point of Lyn's campaign against Perfidious Albion. However, he did raise an interesting point as to whether the Monroe Doctrine should have been applied to a British invasion of the Western Hemisphere. Of course, Lyn had a habit of taking what might be a valid point and generalizing it into part of his incredible web of conspiracies.
The major break the org. had with the neo-cons though was with the Iran-Contra affair. The org. was correct in its exposure of this affair which involved key neo-cons like Ollie North, Adm. Poindexter and current members of the Bush Jr. crowd like Eliot Abrams, John Poindexter and Robert Gates. But in the NCLC universe, the official interpretation was that these were the bad guys surrounding good guy Reagan (who after all adopted "LaR's SDI". Interestingly, although Caspar Weinberger was also part of the Iran-Contra affair, Weinberger got a pass from Lyn.


Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 4:37 pm:

I agree with eaglebeak that LaRouche probably hasn't read most of the books he quotes. But I suspect there are two books he does NOT quote that he skimmed pretty carefully. One is "War! War! War!" by "Cincinnatus" (pro-Nazi promoter of British-Jewish conspiracy theories circa 1940--LHL probably borrowed the book from dear old dad). The other is Mein Kampf.


Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 5:00 pm:

Perhaps LaRouche can write the forward to a new and improved "translation" of Mein Kampf.

This might bring in big money -- limited, signed, first editions. Maybe something with cartoons and lithographs.


Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 5:35 pm:

Friendly cautionary word regarding a previous post's note about enumerating or categorizing LaRouche's 40-year trail of analyses, predictions, prescriptions, betes-noires, icons, suck-up operations, etc., etc.: This process carries a substantial danger of producing vertigo, whiplash, or uncontrollable gales of laughter, albeit of a somewhat guilty, cringe-inducing kind, based on the feeling, How did I tolerate this stuff for so long, probably a good deal longer than I really believed very much of it?


Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 10:45 pm:

Conceded, but if we can contribute to rescuing even a few LYM members from following in our footsteps by getting out now, or even help a deadender see the light while at least a few good years remain, it becomes redemptive and acquires a precious purpose.

Speaking of gales of laughter, xlcr, you outdid yourself in your phenomenal piece yesterday, I was laughing out loud.

Oh, and if you want some more laughs, check out the LPAC home page lead item entitled "The Focus: LaRouche's Platform for the U.S. General Election. Cut to the section, about 12% into the article, entitled "The Matter of Money." Read to the next section. Start paying especial attention as soon as you come to the short paragraph that reads: "Now, a new page in world economic history is being turned." The four paragraphs that follow are mindnumbingly inane, idiotic, impossible, absurd--words don't exist to capture the lunacy therein expressed. Gales of laughter are inevitable, especially if you have anyone to whom you can attempt to tell what he is saying. And, hey, folks, laughter is good. You see, even old Lyndy can do some little iota of good once in a while. I'll be posting on this soon, but I'd rather not spoil the effect of reading this for oneself the first time. My exposition is only necessary to help LYM members be able to appreciate it.


Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 10:53 pm:

Welcome, boomersage! The more sages among us, the better.

Now, on the matter of Helga that has preoccupied some of us lately.

Perhaps LHL isn't sick at all. Perhaps Der Helga (Das Helga?) perceived an opportunity for factional advantage in the fact that the ineffable Farzad Darui has hit the skids (he appears to have been indicted in June. Ooops).

Perhaps Helga perceived that the apparent Federal indictment of Farzad Darui (that's Carpet to you) has left his proteges in the U.S. organization rather more vulnerable than previously (you know who you are, and pretty soon everyone else will know who you are, too).

Perhaps Helga remembered that Farzad has been the Key Guy since Danny Murdoch and Roy Frankhauser and all those colorful people slipped away. And perhaps she saw that with his eclipse, she had a little leverage.

And maybe THAT's why she's all over the U.S. organizational map these days. (She celebrated her birthday with a radio program with Butch Valdes, it is said.)

And maybe THAT's why the U.S. faction is so intense these days. Maybe it's not just the Kronberg case and the Duggan case that are driving them nuts, maybe it's the Farzad case too, hm? And the prospect of the Return of Helga.

Der Blau Engel becomes Der Totenengel, eh?

For those LYMers who never saw that classic movie, I heartily recommend it. Fresh insight into the interesting relationship between Herr Lyn and Frau Helga. Get a Boomer friend to translate for you so you make sure to get the right DVD.

Meanwhile, out at the house, creative fermentation proceeds.


Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 11:31 pm:

We have a little something sent in by Constant Reader.

Another story of love across party lines, this one set in Hollywood. Only someone as cocooned as Lucky Lindy (or his aides and servitors) could possibly think the giving-money-to-Bush hypothesis works as a credible motive for suicide.

Let's test it on the Sheriff, shall we?

Anyhow, here's the offering from Constant Reader:

Clark Gable's marriage in 1939 to his third wife, successful actress Carole Lombard , was the happiest period of his personal life. They purchased a ranch at Encino and once Gable had become accustomed to her often blunt way of expressing herself, they found they had much in common. This was despite the fact that Gable was a conservative Republican and Lombard a liberal Democrat.


Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 6:09 am:


Any attempt to help people ensconced in the NCLC avoid misinvesting more of their effort than they already have is laudable, but it's possible to miss the target sometimes. LaRouche's politics, of course, are and have long been generously sprinkled with folly, contradictions, opportunism, etc. But as important as it is to shed light on those, it's also important to keep in mind that the NCLC doesn't consistently and predictably espouse bad causes or spout idiocy --(though there are generous amounts of both and then-some); they sometimes make just enough sense to take people in and thereby makes themselves insidious (though LaRouche is almost never as earth-shatteringly original in anything he says as he implies he is).

One of the issues, of course, is that given the nature of the organization as a whole, and its paranoid-messianic-apocalyptic ways, even when it's arguably reasonable or "right" in political position A or B, it's singularly ineffective, or even counterproductive, in its efforts.

It's important because humans sometimes work in strange and self-deceptive ways -- for years (and years and years) in the LC, I mentally focused on what I thought was useful or insightful or positive in its politics and its work, putting (or trying to put) out of mind the other stuff, which of course I felt desperately powerless to affect. Only over time did I realize that the hopeless weirdness at the core of the group made it so useless, or worse, in pursuing the noble goals and policies I and others joined it for, and which kept so many of us cleaved to such a self-defeating enterprise for so long.


Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 7:26 am:


I agree, and certainly understand how people in the org practiced "internal emigration" for years, having done so myself.

However, it seems to me that, although the rightness or wrongness of the various positions is irrelevant for the reasons you say, the principal reason it's irrelevant is the viciousness that is shot through the entire operation--a malignant, bitter, and hostile attitude towards human beings which characterizes all the sayings and doings of the org, the internal as well as the external "polemical," and which distorts all the people trapped in its field.

This radiates from LaRouche and never changes. It is the one invariant in the whole picture--other people and phases come and go, but the internal hatred/self-hatred remains, and can invariably be traced to the dominant figure, the unchanging center around which all else revolves.

So it's not just that it's weird or ineffective/counterproductive; the Labor Committee is actively destructive of all that stray into its orbit.


Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 9:17 am:

"...the viciousness that is shot through the entire operation--a malignant, bitter, and hostile attitude towards human beings which characterizes all the sayings and doings of the org, the internal as well as the external "polemical," and which distorts all the people trapped in its field.

This radiates from LaRouche and never changes. It is the one invariant in the whole picture--other people and phases come and go, but the internal hatred/self-hatred remains, and can invariably be traced to the dominant figure, the unchanging center around which all else revolves.

So it's not just that it's weird or ineffective/counterproductive; the Labor Committee is actively destructive of all that stray into its orbit."

Wildly and sadly truthful. Psychological disorders writ large.


Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 11:32 am:

Eaglebeak, I wasn't sure in your post whether you meant to say Lucky Lindy was cuckolded instead of cocooned although both terms may be applicable.
It is true that we all found "positions" in the organization that we could support. Even after I quit I continued to read the newspaper for awhile until it stopped getting mailed altogether (I think I remember that there was about a two year gap between issues) because there were some xposes that I found interested. But now with the internet when there is a political matter I wish to dig into, I can find a wealth of independent material, although it is interesting how, even without using the term larouche, larouche sites will often come up on exposes of things like Iran Contra, Iraq, etc.
Obviously today many people support ending the war in Iraq and/or impeaching Bush. Does that mean we have to join LaRouche, who seems to take credit for everything going on with respect to anti-war opposition or anti-Bush organizing? Absolutely not! Just like LaRouche used the anti-war movement of the 70s he uses the anti-war, anti-Bush movement today. But even during the heights of the anti-war movement in the 70s the organization still never had more than a few hundred members and I don't think ever reached over a 1000 members. At leat in the 70s LaRouche didn't take credit for ending the war in Vietnam, although he did take credit for preventing nuclear war a few years later during the famous Operation Hilex episode.


Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 11:33 am:

New developments in the Jeremiah Duggan case, as reported in the Jewish Chronicle:


Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 3:34 pm:

Remember how LaRouche used to carry on about how he, Clinton, and Pope John Paul II were the trinity that were going to save the world and eradicate all bad things now and forever?

Constant Reader has sent in another item worth mulling over:

"When people think they possess the secret of a perfect social organization which makes evil impossible, they also think that they can use any means, including violence and deceit, in order to bring that organization into being. Politics then becomes a 'secular religion' which operates under the illusion of creating paradise in this world."

--John Paul II
Centesimus Annus


Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 6:14 pm:

LTruth, I really tried to read Lyn's Platform for the Democratic party. Yutes, I beg you to please run the xerox machine overtime and hand that out to the Dem Party so you can take over.

Reading that I found myself constantly doing a Grandpa Simpson voice as it is something worthy of a "Tree Top of Horror" spoof. It reads like something where Lyn is in a nursing home and some underpaid employee has to sit through his endless banter about the world he took over for hours as her punishment for being late.

I read the passages about building the Bering Straits Maglev and then extending it so that you could ship something from the USA to Africa via a Maglev. WTF! Just dial 1-800 UPS or FED EX or DHL and tell them you want to ship something and they will do all of the logistics for you and your company.

Then I read about his problems with autos and it hit me like one of Helga's legendary Beer Farts during OktoberFest. There is an probable FOUR DECADE member who has sold more cars in the Philly region than any slick talking salesmen in the area.

This is a guy named Bob Fow I think who has been a street walker for Lyn since maybe the SWP days. He really has no place to go so the LC does need to be around for a while. The reason I say Bob sold more cars than anyone else is because he would be deployed on busses and trains for years and years. He would get on board and then stand up and announce the latest conspiracy of Lyn at the top of his lungs and walk up and down the aisles. After going through this I bet there were thousands of people who went out and bought or leased a car to get away from this.

Fow is basically a harmless guy from people who know him. With out the LC and Lyn I have no idea what he could do by himself. Each region it seems had their own version and every day they got up for Lyn just as Lyn was going to sleep after another night of Rheingau.


Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 10:47 pm:

Oh, man, I haven't thought about poor Bob Fow in ages. What a shame he never found the right door out. And, irony of ironies, he was probably the only voice which couldn't be silenced standing up for Judiasm and Jews, and Israel, no matter what anybody said to try to shut him up.


Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 10:49 pm:


Are you saying that Lyn runs a day care "facility" for boomers?


Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 11:16 pm:


Xlcr, thanks so much for the link to the LYM site with the back Campaigners. They have the full text of over 20 of the early ones. The list, which seems to be coded by date, is on You can even search for words or phrases, so it's not just an image, but searchable text.

Anyway, I followed xlcr's link to Conceptual History of the Labor Committees, and it was an eye-opener. With the exception of its targeting of the Rockefeller family as the enemy of the day, and the whitewashing and downplaying of Operation Mop-Up, most of what is in there comes across sounding sane, plausible, and at least arguable, even if ultimately incorrect.

For instance, LaRouche in the days before 8/15 (August 15, 1971, when the collapse of the dollar forced Nixon to float the dollar and wreck the Bretton Woods fixed exchange regime) talked of his economic research, which he claimed had correctly anticipated the 1957-58 recession, and the mid-60s recession, and he was calling for "the big one" for early in the '70s. Well, 8/15 WAS big, it really was. Now, LaRouche said the crisis was caused by the huge debt overhang, which would inevitably cause a new great depression unless LaRouche was brought in to save the day, whereas in fact it was caused by the relative weakness of the U.S. economy which caused the dollar to collapse--not quite the same thing--but we "LYMers" of that day could hardly be expected not to see the crisis as the full confirmation of LaRouche's powers of prediction and economic understanding. And even though I can't find it online, I recollect the Emergency Reconstruction Program pretty well, and it was quite down to earth--perhaps too aggressive, but basically called for some good, reasonable stuff--fix the infrastructure, especially our rail system, nuclear power while we work on bringing fusion power on, etc. Unlike the absurdities of today like the "land-bridge" or the Bering Straits maglev tunnel.

And a great deal of what it says in that pamphlet are things I still would agree with, as principles of what is right, or what should be done.

Folks, that's what WE joined, and it was a hell of a lot saner than what the LYM members have joined today. And of course, we joined in a period of "left" resurgence, in the sense of the socialist left, where you weren't taken seriously unless you were a Marxist of some sort, and in the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed Lyn was king--we DID join the best of the lot, for the time. LaRouche abandoned us, really starting in 1973 with the run-up to Beyond Psychosis, the 1974 Rockefeller coup plot scam scare, and the rise of Security and the internal terror of saying anything unapproved--"you're blocking."

Anyway, just a few notes from Memory Lane.


Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 2:02 am:

HELGA'S TURN: The Idiocy of LaRouche's New Bretton Woods Conference Proposal

This issue has been sticking in my craw for too long. It's time to lance the boil (mixed metaphor intentional).

First, how does LaRouche get off praising the pre-1971 Bretton Woods system? That system was THE bad guy, before it became the good guy. (Psst, anyone notice when LaRouche first gave the Bretton Woods system positive billing? Late '80s? early '90s? I have no recollection one way or the other.) And for good reason. Bretton Woods created the IMF, which LaRouche still strongly opposes (though, come to think of it, I can't recall having seen it mentioned for the last several years—surely, if asked, he would, of course, still rail against it, but curious how it's dropped off the radar screen, isn't it?). And it created the World Bank, which he also has always opposed. And leading into the 1971 monetary crisis that forced the end the fixed-exchange rate system, he blamed the Bretton Woods system for creating that crisis. And, don't forget, the two leading protagonists at Bretton Woods were John Maynard Keynes, for the Brits, and Harry Dexter White, for the U.S. bankers. Two such nasty guys surely were up to no good.

So, LYM members, you need to ask Papa Lyndy, was he wrong to criticize the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s, and if not, when and how did that system suddenly become good? And if so, how could he have been so wrong about something like this. But he can't have it both ways.

Hmmm, let me guess: after the hard-right turn in the mid-70s, after the Reagan turn in the '80s, after the Clinton-DLC turn in the '90s, we come to the FDR turn of the '00s, and since FDR set in motion the Bretton Woods system, ahh, I think we have it.

OK, down to brass tacks. What is it about Bretton Woods that LaRouche suddenly likes so much. Well, it appears to be two things.

First, he is fixated on restoring fixed exchange rates. Never mind that in the 1970s, it was simply impossible to maintain them (every dollar of reserves in every Western central bank could have been drained propping up weak currencies in a matter of days, had that practice been maintained), much less today, with electronic transfers and where money is infinitely more volatile; never mind that that begs the question of what level to set them at: imagine trying to arbitrarily determine a "fair" exchange rate of every currency in the world with every other one—and every country would have to agree. I mean, really, close your eyes and try to picture a monetary conference, with delegations from 200 countries, trying to decide what exchange rates every currency should have to every other currency. If the idiocy of the attempt doesn't overwhelm you, do not pass go, go directly to the Leesburg National Center, you deserve it (or a card table shrine in a region, if that's your preference); and that's just for openers—every country would have to set up exchange controls, knowing they don't work; and how would it work when a currency gets speculated against? Who would prop up the currencies. There was agreement coming out of World War II because there was no currency exchange—most currencies were inconvertible in 1945—there was no general volatility in exchange rates, so it could work, for a while. In fact, every post-war monetary crisis was caused by the instability created when the currency of a major country needed to be devalued, and couldn't be in an orderly way.


Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 2:03 am:

HELGA'S TURN: The Idiocy of LaRouche's New Bretton Woods Conference Proposal
(Part 2)
Second, is that LaRouche wants a venue where the leading powers get together and decide to do all the other things that he wants them to do. None of any of this has the slightest thing to do with Bretton Woods I. For LaRouche, other than playing King Knute and ordering the currencies to fix themselves and remain constant forever after, in the vain pursuit of the currency metastability that Bretton Woods achieved for 25 years, the call for a new Bretton Woods conference has absolutely zero, zilch, zed, nought, to do with the historical Bretton Woods conference or system. He doesn't even call for a return to the gold standard (hmm, I wonder if that just slipped his mind?)

What he does call for cannot be paraphrased. It must be quoted. Here, we are blessed with a very recent reissue, which bears Dame Helga's ineffable stamp, of the Schiller Institute's (whatever that institution is today—whatever it ever was) call for a New Bretton Woods Conference. Now, I say reissue, because on April 29, 2005, a previous version was issued ( ). While the two versions are similar, I present both to illustrate the subtle changes over 2+ years.

April 29, 2005:

1. There shall immediately be re-established fixed exchange rates. Just like that. Do they fix themsevles?
2. A treaty shall be enacted between Governments, forbidding speculation in derivative products. ALL derivatives? Including ordinary futures, such the ones farmers depend on? And by what legal authority will this be done, pray tell? And is there any concern that cancelling what the front matter to these points says is $2 quadrillion dollars of speculative financial paper might have some negative effect on the banks and the rest of the economy. Just a thought!
3. The debt shall either be cancelled, or reorganized. What a useful, precise formulation!! "The debt." What debt? All debt? Bank debt? Treasury debt? What an utterly bizarro, flippant, cement-headed thing to propose.
4. Fresh credit lines shall be opened by the State, to create full employment by investing in critical infrastructure and technological innovation. By "the" State—I thought this was an international conference of many States. Just open credit lines, just like that. Snap your fingers, and poof, instant credit lines. And you're gong to employ the entire unemployed population of the world on "critical infrastructure and technological innovation?" Given the guaranteed total shutdown of manufacturing production worldwide as soon as all the banks collapse after the financial system is shut down and all derivatives vaporized, this will represent nearly the entire population. "Let them eat infrastructure." If that rallying cry was good enough for Marie Antoinette, it's good enough for me. Except that cake is at least edible. Oh, well.
5. The building of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, as the keystone for rebuilding the world economy, is the vision that will bring about not only a new "Wirtschaftswunder," (economic miracle) but peace in the 21st Century. Talk about "mother's magic." Kiss it and it will get better. Snap Helga's fingers, and the Eurasian "Land-Bridge" (sic), presto changeo, becomes the "keystone" for rebuilding the world economy.


Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 2:05 am:

HELGA'S TURN: The Idiocy of LaRouche's New Bretton Woods Conference Proposal
(Part 3)
6. A new Peace of Westphalia will ensure that for no less than the coming half-century, raw materials shall be extracted and processed for the benefit of every nation on this planet. So, hmm, it was really all about raw materials all the time? Yeah, wow, how did the rest of us miss that little detail, that all conflict since the end of World War II has been about fights for raw materials. And how, pray tell, will this come about? Will the countries that have the raw materials just give them away, or sell them, and if so, for what price, who will develop and extract them, and what are they, anyway? Oh, I get it, this is like the notion of the village commons in old New England, this new Bretton Woods conference, where the lion lies down with the lamb, and where every nation's raw materials become international common property, to be shared how?, how about, "from each according to his work, and to each according to his need?" How peaceful.
Oh, and just preceding the 6 points is the call to adopt them, which includes this gem: The world financial system is about to implode. Gross production worldwide stands at a mere forty trillion dollars, over which looms gigantic a bubble fifty times that size, viz., two thousand trillion dollars' worth of financial liabilities. The impending bankruptcy of General Motors and potentially, of the entire U.S. automobile industry, is but one of many factors that could well lead to the collapse of the U.S. dollar, and thereby, that of the entire financial system. Finally, I understand. It all becomes clear. I simply hadn't realized that the size of the financial bubble was 50 times the mere $40 trillion of world wide production. If I had, I surely would have pulled out of the stock market long ago, while the going was good. Let's do a little math, eh? Since this $2 quadrillion in "financial liabilities" is out there, presumably, earning someone some money—hey, otherwise, why would it have been created?---let's just be conservative, and assume that the average interest rate on these financial liabilities is a modest 5%. Fair enough? OK, 5% of $2 quadrillion is a mere $100 trillion. Oh, my God, LaRouche is more than right. With interest on these financial liabilities eating up 2 ½ times the entire output of the globe, no wonder we're in trouble!
And, clearly, it's the $2 quadrillion that the New Bretton Woods conferees from 200 nations will agree to just…vaporize. Never mind that the present crisis teaches us that banks get involved in things involving financial instruments, and if you simply vaporize every derivative, just issue a fiat that they have zero value, or whatever, the banks might have some slight difficulties keeping their doors open.
Oh, and to guild the lilly, there is of course the p r e t t y firm forecast of an "impending" bankruptcy of GM (this was April, 2005). Close, but no cigar, at least not yet. Oh, and "the world financial system is about to implode." I guess it boils down to what the meaning of "about to" is.


Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 2:06 am:

HELGA'S TURN: The Idiocy of LaRouche's New Bretton Woods Conference Proposal
(Part 4)
Folks, and especially any LYM members, have you eyes to see and brains to read, and to think about what you read? Don't you see what this is? This is pure insanity, the most flippant, absurd, mind-numbingly moronic statements, just tossed out there by Helga and Lyn, as if reality didn't exist, and the wildest, free-associated, superannuated delusions can be passed off as the latest gems from the oracle. This page is still available to the public on the LPAC website, folks. This is current LaRouche policy program. Only it gets better in 2007. As I said, you can't make this stuff up.
So, now to the new version, just posted on August 12, and explicitly issued as written by Helga, as the previous one surely was also:
1. The current world financial system must be declared hopelessly bankrupt and be replaced by a new one. (This point is new from 2005.) Child's play, really. No need for details, here, specifics about how this might actually be accomplished, or what it might actually MEAN to say the world financial system is bankrupt—such as, what, exactly, is bankrupt: the banks? Stock markets? Derivatives market? Central Bank or Treasuries? Oh, and of course, setting up a new system, ask any toddler, how to do this is second nature for any properly educated pre-K student.
2. A system of fixed exchange rates must be agreed upon immediately. Carried over. See commentary above.
3. Derivatives speculation must be prohibited through an agreement among governments. Same as 2005.
4. There must be put into effect a comprehensive reorganization, or, as the case may be, a stretching-out of debts. Presumably means "reorganization of debts," this replaces "cancel or reorganize the debt" of 2005. Phew. This, at least, resolves this one. Don't outright cancel any debts, just reorganize or stretch them all out. Even the non-problem debts? Oh, good point, with LaRouche's draconian program, there won't be any non-defaulted debts, nobody will be solvent. 'Nuff said.
5. There must be put in place new credit lines, through state credit creation, in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton and the American System, which will make possible productive full employment, through investments in basic infrastructure and technological revival. Same basic point as 2005, with Alex Ham and the Am Sys thrown in for dramatic effect.
6. The completion of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, as the kernel of the reconstruction of the world economy, is thus the vision which will not only bring about an economic miracle, but also can become a system of peace for the 21st Century. Huge changes here. "building" of the "Land-Bridge" is now replaced by "completion." And "keystone" is replaced by "kernel." And, holy of holies, a down-draft of honesty, for a change, this L-B is actually a "vision" that will bring about "an economic miracle." At last, we at least know what we're talking about. Miracles. Granted, it will take more than a miracle to make the lunacy in these 7 points become practical, but at least this admission is a start. So, it was about "mother's magic" after all.


Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 2:07 am:

HELGA'S TURN: The Idiocy of LaRouche's New Bretton Woods Conference Proposal
(Part 4)
7. A new "Treaty of Westphalia" must guarantee the opening up and development of raw materials for all nations on this Earth, for at least the next 50 years. Also "corrected," no longer sounds quite so communistic, just says "open up and develop raw materials for all nations on earth." At least that's progress.
"Nuff said" on the 7 points. Except that in the intro it says that this will be brought to all the same important personages around the world they claim that the 1997, 2000 and 2005 versions were brought to, supposedly, with rave reviews and support from "thousands of prominent personalities from all over the work, among them former heads of state, members of parliaments, unionists, entrepreneurs, city officials, church members, members of the military, and so forth,[who] demanded a reorganization of the world financial system," which is hard to believe. Unless they weren't actually shown the 6 points from 2005, just the principle of a monetary conference. Who knows? Actually, the 2005 version promised that it would be posted, with signatures, on the web. Since it's not on the web, perhaps the word "thousands" is off just ever so slightly, by, perhaps, let us guess, 3 orders of magnitude. That seems more reasonable.
One final humoresque: that Helga wrote this is also clear from how she describes, in the front matter, the state of the world today—this is NOT a LaRouche formulation. She says that the neo-cons of the Bush Administration, by their policies in the world, have accelerated by "decades" the "process of cooperation" of the nations of Eurasia and Latin America, meaning, they have come together in opposition to the neo-con-controlled US. But doesn't that pose a certain risk to the success of a New Bretton Woods conference now, with Bush & Co still in charge? Not to worry. Helga to the rescue from this dilemma.
Again, you can't make this stuff up. The other nations of the world are asked to: "declare ourselves in favor of cooperation with the "real" America, in the tradition of the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence, that America which is connected with names such as Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King, and which is inspired by Lyndon LaRouche today. America must be a part of the new community of principle of sovereign republics, which is bound together through the common interests of mankind."
Let's see, if we can't deal with the America we have, we will make up another America more to our liking, and deal with it. Hey, why didn't we apply that approach when the Soviet Union was threatening us before 1990? That would have so much easier than dealing with the real Soviet Union. And it's so heart-warming to learn that the U.S. today is "inspired by Lyndon LaRouche today." If the news media just didn't lie so much, everyone would know that everyone else supported him.
If I knew any Latin, I'd close by simply saying, in Latin, "words fail me."


Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 3:59 am:

Wow larouchetruth! Impressive, but I m afraid it ll go far above the LYMers heads whose economic problems are: will I raise enough money today to eat my sandwich? For them, thousands, millions, trillions, quadrillons are mere abstractions. The "real money" are the few bucks they might raise today...
As for Helga's reputation as an "economist" who has the "miracle solution" ... again have a look at this, although in german, it says it all!
On Youtube, polls show she has beaten old lindy in the nuttiness category... As I wrote in a previous post, helga is now in a strong position for the battle for succession ... and will surely be greeted as a hero at their next iclc conference in wiesbaden this 15-16 sept.


Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 4:01 am:

sorry, the link on helga was this one:


Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 7:35 am:

The recent speculation about LaRouche being sick (or locked in a closet again by Helga) must give way to hard facts:

He is replying to his email--for example, he speaks to an Italian economist of the "rapidly unfolding weeks ahead" (they're moving faster than usual in this crisis? unfolding more fully?) and adds that the crisis will develop "in phases."

What insight! What powerful fermentation! So ein kerl! It bears the authentic stamp of LaRouche's thinking, so we must conclude that he is alive, well, and forecasting up a storm.

But still, Helga remains resolutely at the forefront, with yet another conference call leading off the briefing (after LHL's history-making email, of course).

Not only that, but the Ibero-American Labor Committee had a meeting some place where 15 people showed up.

Watch out, world!


Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 8:07 am:

I saw a guy locally pick up a pamphlet from a long-time "boomer" organizer, and it was only after a full three blocks that the pigeon tossed the "literature" in the trash!

Times they are a changin'.

As to the Conceptual History of the Labor Committees which I have also just reread, while I can see superficially what it was that drew me initially to the Labor Committees and that perhaps Lyn was not totally off his nut at that point, the following was just as true then as now: (1) the broad, sweeping statements which are never substantiated, (2) the pretense to universal wisdom whereby everything is related to everything else and Lyn assesses each thing with the truthful clarity of a god, (3) the LYING megalomania whereby he imagines his own actions and those of his cult followers as critical players at each juncture (a formerly favorite word in the NCLC, but the concept informs daily LYM practice today), and (4) the ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with Prince Albert (who belongs in the can) together with the childish conspiracy theories which at that point revolved solely around the Rockefeller family. I dare say that despite how they earned their money in the first place, the Rockefellers subsequently have done far more good for humanity than LaRouche could ever imagine having done.

The elements of insanity were already fully in place, but Lyn was more connected to reality (i.e., other people) then as well as to socialist history than he is after over thirty years of isolation.


Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 2:09 pm:

The isolation/self-isolation is undoubtedly key to the deterioration over the years.

This is a man who has had almost no contact with the outside world since January 1974. He is whisked from place to place in the middle of the night. When the Concorde flew, he flew to Europe in that sleek rich man's toy. He never runs into anyone he dislikes or fears--he sees only those invited, pre-screened, called to his house.

When he travels, at home or abroad, only Security and perhaps a fraction of the pathetic "inner elite" of the NEC or the real inner elite knows--it's apparently a security risk for regular members to know.

Want to see "Lyn"? Want to talk to him? Been in the organization for 300 years slaving for him? Your chances of actually seeing or talking to the great man are very slim (as will be shown subsequently in a posting).

You may want to "brief" him on something of great pitch and moment--but if he doesn't want to hear it, you're out of luck.

You may want to argue with him, to fight with him--Aha! That's it! That's why you'll never get in to see him.

The challenge of day-to-day reality, the tremendous psychological pain of having to confront the Other, of being treated like simply another human being, is far too great an inner agony--and I am not speaking sarcastically here, I am speaking clinically--to be borne.

That is why in the old days LaRouche did not hold jobs, but sat in his apartment while his partner worked to support him--sat watching TV ("Mission Impossible") and withdrawing from the world.


Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 2:12 pm:

That is why the moment he could use the events of January 1974--his creation--to retreat/withdraw forever, the world never saw him again, except on webcasts or TV half-hours or on a distant podium surrounded by "security" at conferences.

If you ever get in a fight with him, Constant Reader, you will see that he has no idea how to have an argument with another human being. He is frightened--disoriented--by the experience. He may appear passive and almost apologetic.

But don't be fooled. Later, when it's safe, when you are gone and he is again surrounded by the Praetorian Guard of those poor guys on "security," he will rail and rave and fulminate and vituperate about you--and not for an hour or a day, but for years and years and years. And what he says about you from the safety of his windy fastness, will have a far greater effect on your life than your yelling at him will have on his.

For years this anomic, autistic lifestyle was justified as "imposed on" him by security considerations, the danger that "they" (from Rockefeller, as Sancho says, to Baroness Whoever) were out to get him and to kill him.

Bu the lie was given to that in 1989, when LaRouche was led off in handcuffs to prison. All his followers (well, almost all) expected him to be assassinated immediately. It was the greatest disaster imaginable.

Except he wasn't assassinated. He wasn't even roughed up. He wasn't ... anything. The Federal government, run by the "administrative fascist regime" of George H.W. Bush, didn't lay a hand on him.

In desperation, LaRouche and an NEC member (who has since quit--no wonder) concocted a series of exquisitely embarrassing press releases charging the Feds with an attempt to assassinate him by colonoscopy.

Even those who were deeply concerned about his situation could hardly suppress a giggle.

But really, it was madness--they should have been rushing for the exits, not smiling to discover that even the great are "human."

LaRouche's problem isn't that he's "all too human," it's that he is passionately hostile to a humanity in whose swirling, disorderly masses he feels constantly threatened.

It's true that bullies are cowards. But what he fears is not so much physical danger, though he is frantic about that--it's the emotional and psychological danger posed to a fragile, brittle sense of self by the rough and tumble of the outside world.

And hence his decades-long escape, alike from those who hate him and those who love him.


Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 5:40 pm:

Lyn must have gone conservative in the past few years, I thought that the driving force for the new economy would be setting our sights on a manned mission to Mars and colonizing space, not simply building maglevs across the Bering Straits. Much more mundane than a fusion based colony on Mars with fusion powered space travel within fifty years!!!
As to the fixed exchange rates I was almost going to pose whatever happened to fixing the rate of world currencies on gold but he raised that rubric. Now does he answer how a world financial system in the hundreds of trillions of dollars is going to operate based upon a fixed supply of gold? Or perhaps we'll create more gold with a fusion torch.
But we needn't worry about who will fix the rates of currencies since Lyn and Helga will be in charge and like the Queen of Hearts the value of currencies will be whatever they say they will mean. And I guess the same procedure wil be on how we prolong the debt instead of simply collapse it, Lyn and Helga can decide how long (perhaps using the Ben Franklin notes as their model for repaying the loans). Seriously though I don't think even Joe Stalin figured he could single-handedly organize the whole Soviet economy to carry out his famous five year plans, he had a whole cadre of bureaucrats who he could routinely order executed or imprisoned when they failed to meet the quotas that Uncle Joe imposed. Lyn doesn't even suggest who's going to plan all these new changes in the world economy.


Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 6:03 pm:

LTruth, in reading a summary of Lyn's yearly delusions I noticed something called "The Club of Isles". I vaguely remember coming across that years and years ago and wondered where I heard of that. Then pow! It hit me like a one of Helga's legendary beer farts during OktoberFest. On wild anti semitic web sites one can find praise for Lyn and the cult's theology of "The British = The Jews" .

Try this one as an example.

Looking further down the posts someone mentions an anti semitic book in Japan which Lyn's closest security staffers had a hand in. For quite some time, before the age of the internet, it was impossible to track this stuff down. But someone with a WABAC machine found a reference in a book review of the history of Japanese anti semitism where it jumps out at you.

In Leesburg it seems that after the death of Ken Kronberg, Lyn has a welcome wagon of sorts where security chief Jeff Steinberg and Paul Goldstein knock on your door and sit down to chit chat. At first glance this seems a bit odd as Paul Goldstein claims to everyone that he is "out" of the LC while in the next breath claims that he is the man who made Lyn.

When your turn comes up to get that visit from Jeff and Paul ask them if they can autograph a book called "Confessions of the Jews" which was published and translated by a Pastor Masami Uno who is one of the most prolific anti semitic publishers in Japan.

Protocols of Zion, The Club of Isles, Satanists. I wonder if Lyn is channelling Henry Ford instead of FDR at times.


Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 6:04 pm:

I am certain that Jeff and Paul will gladly explain how close they are to Masami Uno and even share laughs about how all of them were involved in book projects with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as feature. Why if you serve some Starbucks coffee you might just get them to jointly autograph "Confessions of the Jews".

If they both claim amnesia, just take them or your local leaders to this web site and ask for a clarification.

Why Jeff and Paul, those two wild and crazy guys might be so honored by you bringing up "Confessions of The Jews" that may just break down and do a skit for you and relive telling those famous 'Jew Jokes" from the 1980s which caused an Exodus of LC Jews from the 304 W58th St office.

There is a lot for these two happy campers to explain. We need to make sure that we have our books straight as there is another one published by Victor Marchetti for Japan by Paul and Jeff about the ADL and Zionism. Who knows what else there is out there in this murky world.

I and others are wondering if those two are planning a post Lyn party of sorts and getting their people together to battle Helga. Here is something for Larouche's Believe it or not Museum".

"Paul and Jeff tried to convince Lyn in the 1980s that the safest place for him to be safe from the never ending assasination threats was in prison"

Believe it or not.


Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 9:08 pm:

Get a load of this. Xclr, thanks for the link to "savethemales," it really is quite funny to see the kook right-wing conspiracy theory Illuminati, freemasons, etcs., networks using LaRouche, EIR, Steinberg, and New Federalist as authoritative sources for information they are weaving into their story. This particular instance sounds very much like Labor Committee of late '70s vintage, caught in a time-warp while LaRouche has "moved on," at least as to particulars.

I recall the Club of the Isles quite well. It was first mentioned (and almost last mentioned--this one sank from sight pretty quickly after being ballyhooed as the mother-lode (or is it mother load?) of the enemy oligarchy) in the EIR in early fall, 1994, that was entirely devoted to blaming the genocide in Rwanda on, get ready, the Tutsi's, the catspaws of Uganda president Museveni, in turn controlled lock, stock and barrel by the British Commonwealth secretary, based on their use of a large national park as their training and staging area. The same EIR identified the large national parks in much of the world as the locus for a world-wide terrorist international poised to strike at nations, which was camping out in these parks, training in them, etc. And it was all led by Prince Philip, in his role as head of the World Wildlife Fund (you know, national parks, wildlife, get the connection?), deployed on behalf of the Club of the Isles, described as composed of mainly the largest European banks and corporations wielding $10 trillion (in 1994, this was a lot more than it would be even today)in assets.

Well, I always intended (at least, until I forgot all about it), to try to research this "Club of the Isles," and find out more about it, seeing as how it kind of emerged out of nowhere, unlike folks like the Bilderbergers, Trilats, etc., who were verifiably real people. So, prompted by xlcr's post, I did a simple Google search. Well, over 700 hits, which I have no intention of checking out all of, but I went through about the top 30 of them. Bingo. This is really great. There turn out to be a few folks out there who openly cite LaRouche's stuff, like it, and weave it in to their stuff as corroboration. A number of these types picked up Club of the Isles from this 1994 EIR or a New Fed coverage of the same topic. Then there was at least one covert LaRouche online sales outlet, American Almanac, identified as tied to Suzanne Klebbe. The name is familiar, she was defintely a member, so she either is still, or was, and is making money (or trying to) peddling LaRouche secret info. Go for it, Suzanne.


Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 9:11 pm:

But what I could not find was any source that independent of LaRouche-linked sources, had ever heard of it. Then I found a site, interesting in its own right, called "Project for the Exposure of Hidden Organizations," apparently in Europe by its URL, and clearly not a LaRouche cutout. It actually lists information about a large number of organizations, categorized as follows:

1. Existence known, albeit in (very) small circles
2. Existence known, although it can be (and usually is) denied
3. Existence uncertain and possibly made up
4. The classic secret societies
5. UFO-related groups

Three guesses which one hides the Club of the Isles? But it shouldn't take more than one. If you guessed number 3, you are right. Here is the notation:

The only (vague) information about this group comes from EIR. It is not to be confused with the 1001 Club. November 1994, Executive Intelligence Review, 'The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor', p. 9-11:

That's enough for me. Whoever, probably Jeff and Paul, or actually this one could have been Al D., since he was deep into sources telling him all about how the Rwandan genocide was set up by its victims, simply made it up. Out of whole cloth. And now, it has become a stock item of evidence in these nutwing circles, endlessly recycled, with a probably permanent life of its own. Truly amazing. LYMers, if you can only make it one day to the Big House (the National Center in Leesburg), and kiss whatever the right posteriors will be at that time, maybe you, too, can aspire to create an entirely fictitious organization at the center of the oligarchy's 3000-year unbroken conspiracy against humanity--and watch it thrive in the hothouse world of LaRouche's coreligionists for his particular brand of historical fantasy. Or you could head for the hills. Your call.


Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 1:37 am:

The Great Divide: What Pushed LaRouche Over the Edge between 1972 and 1974?
Part 1

Eaglebeak's discussion of LaRouche's isolation since 1974, combined with my own knowledge, and what I've heard over the years from others, provokes a really key question. I want to throw out the question, and then later, perhaps tomorrow, provide the answer that I find compelling, which if correct would unravel in a profound way that I, at least, have never heard suggested before, the real driving force in what LaRouche has become in the last 35 years.

I have not previously thought of LaRouche as being cut off from almost all contact with anyone but a tiny handful of brownnosers for the past 33 years, in quite the way he (Eaglebeak) lays it out. But I did, more than once, ask myself, why doesn't he come in to the office occasionally. Certainly unscheduled visits couldn't be security risks. It takes foreknowledge and lots of time to plan professional hits. It never made any sense.

What Eaglebeak added that I was not aware of, is how Lyn responds to criticism in private, that he acts actually frightened, disoriented. If true, that's quite something. Not, to put it mildly, a match to his persona.

But I do not believe that Eaglebeak is correct in saying that he was always like this. I can't comment on whether he sponged on his partner "in the old days" and hung out in his apartment, nor is it clear which years "the old days" covers. What I do know, and some of this comes from first hand stories from other, older exers at the ex-member gatherings held once a year at Ken and Janet M.'s house in Jersey for a number of Labor Day weekends in the '90s, is that LaRouche prior to 1973 did b{not} hide himself the way he did post 1974, members could sometimes go back with him to his apartment in the East Village after one of his classes or a conference speech, even have a meal with him, he was relatively accessible, and of course, he kept giving his 6-session classes on Marxian economics, which, curiously, completely stopped over the same time period (I just thought of that one). In fact, that course was crucial to expanding the early followership, especially in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Boston.

And, equally relevant, there b{was} an internal life in the organization, one b{could} disagree with him in a meeting, even strongly so, and argue one's case, and he would argue back, but he really b{would} argue, unlike what Eaglebeak reports for later years. And there was no sense of disgrace, or fear, to do so. The internal terror of appearing to differ from the latest "line" that LaRouche put out, was absent. LaRouche was not the God relative to us peons, that he shortly became by 1975, neither in our minds, nor in his own mind.

Yet, by 1975, he had become our God. In order to appreciate the issue, which I believe is really central to advancing our understanding of him—and us—I want to review some of the predicates of that. We all remember the basic chronology: Operation Mop Up was launched in March, 1973, and went on for about 4 months until it was abruptly stopped, in the alleged service of stopping the Communist Party from disrupting our NUWRO events. Around the same time, several brave members risked their lives to organize some genuine ghetto gang members, with some apparent initial success.


Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 1:38 am:

The Great Divide: What Pushed LaRouche Over the Edge between 1972 and 1974?
Part 2

But the most ominous development was the aftermath of Lyn's trip to Europe, when he announced he had assembled the leaders of our fledgling European group, mainly from Germany, Italy, France and Sweden, I believe, for a weekend-long "session," at which he had successfully put them through an intense psychological experience and by the end, had, in this crucible, allegedly helped them make tremendous leaps of psychological understanding and strength, based on LaRouche tearing down their old "selves" and helping them forge new ones (the specifics are fuzzy on what we were told actually happened, but this is close enough). It was called the "Munchrat experience" or something close to that, being held in a city by that name. The moment he returned, he a) promised that he would do the same with the members of the NEC and NC, and they would propagate it to the broader membership. And b) he began a series of writings, the first several mimeographed, subsequent ones appearing in Campaigners culminating by the end of the year or the beginning of 1974, with Beyond Psychoanalysis, the first of which, I believe, was "Mother's Fears."

I don't propose to take the time here to say much about the specifics. LYMers, the Campaigners are available on your own website, I imagine somebody still has the old mimeographed items, but they're hardly accessible. The simple gist of the series was (and others, feel free to fill in what I've forgotten or overlooked) a) everyone was "mother dominated," which made them impotent, both politically and sexually (not that they couldn't necessarily get it up physically, but that even if they could, the sex they experienced was degraded), b) people needed to "confront" these internalized fears put there by our mothers in order to become liberated from their debilitating influence, c) the Latin "macho" was the poster child for the effect of this mother domination in creating a sexist, but inwardly insecure, impotent, person, and d) that that inner self was labeled as "little me," the true identity that was too timid and insecure to face the awesome responsibility that history required of our tiny group to lead humanity through the present crisis.

I don't recall if this next came from LaRouche in his writings, or as repeated by his minions—I recall hearing it as coming from Tony P in a New York LC meeting, the charge that one was "blocking"—the perfect weapon for someone one or more rungs up the leadership food chain than you were, to put you down in a way that left you no defense. It was perfect. It no longer mattered what anyone said, if it disagreed with something coming down from leadership. Your argument could be simply ignored because you were "blocking." This, of course, only worked down, not up. No one could get away with charging someone above them on the leadership food chain with blocking. That would be a contradiction, and would imply that the leadership food chain was not an accurate reflection of the relative level to which each person had progressed in his ability to "potently" follow LaRouche's latest dictum. So, it became a self-fulfilling and self-perpetuating bit of trickery. All authority, all wisdom, suddenly flowed in one direction, down from the top, from Lyn through the NEC to the NC, to the lowly member.

And it all happened very quickly. And it worked like a charm, because a) who among us wasn't insecure about his sexual potency, especially if someone who "obviously" was ten-times more potent than we were was telling us we were impotent, b) he held out the (illusory) promise that "help was on the way," just hold a little longer, and Lyn will reproduce the Munchrat process here, and pretty soon, you'll all be way more potent than you are now.


Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 1:43 am:

Part 3

Now, overlaid on that was the following sequence of events: I believe that Rockefeller was just starting to be singled out as the leader of the enemy side. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that we had such a defined, personified, feindbild (picture of the enemy) prior to that. We had the Fraser frameup case in 1969-70, then the monetary crisis and ERP of 1971, then the anti-Zero Growth, Club of Rome campaign of 1972, as our leading focuses for activities, in addition to fighting for "left hegemony" in what remained of the anti-war and left ferment of the country. Secondly, in the fall of 1973, we were told that one of our leading Greek members in Europe had been being brainwashed in East Germany over a period of months by the Stasi, acting on Soviet orders, until LaRouche discovered it, and rescued the member, whose name I am forgetting. As I recollect, this coincided, for the first time, in identifying the Soviet Union as specifically out to "get" LaRouche, seeing him as an enemy, I guess because we had supplanted the Communist Party by wresting "left hegemony" from them, so we were a real threat to their leading asset in the U.S. But didn't we begin attacking them and claiming they were out to get Lyn right about this time?

I am a bit fuzzy on the chronology of one other thing, which is when the real ego-stripping sessions, the most notorious being those conducted by Kostas K in the New York and some other locals, took place, but I believe they took place starting in late summer and into the fall of 1973. Rich F was a particular victim out in Detroit, an extremely aggressive, self-confident field organizer in the previous several years, induced to have a virtual breakdown from which he never recovered his self-confidence. Apparently, this so obviously got out of hand that as suddenly as it started, it ended. But clearly, enormous damage was done to the entire membership's ability and willingness to think for themselves, question leadership, or do anything but adulate Lyn.

All of which set the stage for the most bizarre several weeks in the organization's history. Which were arguably the "tipping point," or "point of no return," between the old LC, which might have remained free enough to retain some internal political life and not put Lyn on the pedestal that he mounted during 1973 and never came down from, and the new one, which removed all checks and balances from the now paramount Leader. The National Conference over Christmas-New Years 1973-74. Lyn's opening address to the public conference, to which a number of members had actually invited their parents to witness and be convinced by their new guru, was a fiasco, at least vis a vis the parents. I don't recall that many specifics, but it was like no other public speech by LaRouche then or since, being largely a collection of sexual references, of which I remember only the claim that policemen's billy clubs were phalluses, and policemen in general homosexuals. We, or at least I, as best I can remember it, related everything he said to the BP campaign and "made sense" of it that way. Non members, needless to say, were freaked, not to mention grossed, out.

Then we had, and I forget whether a session or two got cancelled or postponed, but we got the news, that filtered in piecemeal, that Chris and Carol W., who had been in England, had just arrived overnight, during the Conference, and that it turned out that Chris had been brainwashed over a period of months previously, and that when they tried to fly back, on a secondary airline, it was already in the air and was recalled for some reason involving them, the CIA and possibly the KGB, but that somehow they got back safely, and that LaRouche spent all night the moment they arrived "deprogramming" him. As I recollect it, Lyn did not return to the Conference, and the internal wasn't much, as NEC members just reported what they knew.


Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 1:44 am:

The Great Divide: What Pushed LaRouche Over the Edge between 1972 and 1974?
Part 4

Then, on New Years' Day, 1974, we arrived in the national office on 34th street, to be told to listen to a tape recording from the previous night's NEC meeting, including Lyn. This was the first "morning briefing." Within a few days, it was being typed up and passed around, and the briefing has remained a constant every since. But more important, we were instructed that the brainwashing plot was part and parcel of a plot by Rockefeller to pull off a coup in the near future, and we had to go out and leaflet the general population to warn them of this. I believe that carrying out such a campaign was a major departure from any previous M.O.

This was a real critical moment. The first one, I believe, where any significant number of members decided Lyn no longer made any sense. I don't recall how many left in the next several months, but it was far from negligible, including one person, whose name I forget, who'd been with Lyn since the beginning, but had been out of the country on some academic activity for a while who returned, but didn't stay long. And I recall that I had real trouble believing the substance of what we were handing out. This wasn't what I had signed up for. I don't recall how I ended up rationalizing it, and how successful I was. I am certain I was highly relieved when we at least stopped the mass leafleting after a relatively short period. (I guess it worked, since Rockefeller never launched his coup.)

OK, to wrap this up more briefly. As part of the Chris W. brainwashing story, we had the revelation of the plot to send Cuban frogmen and kidnap or kill Lyn at his apartment. I believe that was the genesis of Security. I believe that whatever access people had to Lyn up to that time, it became very much more rarefied after that. There were NEC meetings with Lyn, I believe, nightly, which were attended by designated regular members, one per night on a rotating shift basis, whose job was to take notes in order to write up the next morning's briefing, and these were browbeating sessions. Ed S was a particular target, "Lake Placid," Lyn called him, so I was told by somebody, but it wasn't only him who was targetted.

The final piece of the picture was the rise of Security. Jose T, the early head of security activities, seemed to be a ringleader, but actually, as I learned from him at one of the Labor Day get togethers, he was a lone voice of sanity, who saw right through the brainwashing, recognized immediately that Chris wasn't brainwashed, and was probably just on drugs, and tried to convince Lyn to stop maintaining this story. He soon left, when he concluded that it was hopeless to try to change Lyn's mind on this.

What then happened with Security, from the standpoint of older members, is that much younger, newer, politically naïve or inexperienced, members, including people with no political credentials, who somehow managed to get assigned to Security—Jose's younger brother Phillo comes to mind, but there were others—suddenly wielded inordinate power. The analogy to how Stalin created the OGPU, the ancestor of the NKVD (later the KGB) to intimidate the old-line leaders, came to my mind at the time, and it remains a very apt comparison. It all seemed surreal. But suddenly, one could get in trouble for an "errant" thought that deviated from "the line," and be accused, not just of "blocking," but of endangering Lyn. And there was no appeal, no discussion, nothing to do but accept the new regime, or quit. Which some did. From that point forward, in fact, we always had a "party line" in a sense that I don't believe we did previously.


Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 1:46 am:

The Great Divide: What Pushed LaRouche Over the Edge between 1972 and 1974?
Part 5

From that point, in early 1974, I believe dates Lyn's almost total seclusion. After all, he was under attack from the CIA b{and} the KGB. They had already brainwashed two members, and possibly more. What Eablebeak reports dates from this moment forward.

So, I posit that 1973 was the pivotal year, starting with Munchrat, and culminating in what I've described as occurring in early 1974. A mildly "democratic centralist" organization which still had room for internal debate, and even criticism of LaRouche, became a LaRouche worship society, in less than a year. Ironically, the only ones, as far as I know, who ever disagreed with LaRouche subsequently were members of the NEC, such as Fernando Q., including long before he left. In fact, there was a weird period when he removed from the NEC because of his disagreements, and later brought back on. That is, a few of the NEC leaders, but only behind closed doors, actually spoke up on rare occasions. Internal conferences were rubber stamps for voting in whatever leadership "slate" LaRouche hand-picked, and nobody ever put up a rival slate. A complete "democratic centralist" internal dictatorship in all but name, where all wisdom flowed from LaRouche alone. And LaRouche himself, in person, vanished from visibility to members, except at the then twice-yearly conferences. He gave no more classes. He all but never visited the offices where his organization's members worked.

And, in support of Eaglebeak's characterization of his difficulty in handling himself in situations where he did, on occasion, have to interact with real people in the real world, I want to merely mention that this accords with LaRouche's disastrous meetings with foreign heads of state and other foreign dignitaries. His meeting with Indira Gandhi was a disaster, as was his meeting during the same Asian trip with top Japanese industrialists—those were, I believe, his first such meetings, but not the last. Details of his conduct will have to wait for another occasion. I have heard third hand reports of similar disasters when he visited Eastern Europe 6 or 7 years ago. I encourage others who know the results of any other of his high-profile trips to share what they know, but I'd be willing to bet that the pattern will persist. (And granted, he does make a favorable impression on a few people, but I'd be willing to bet it tends to be people who start out already so favorably inclined that Lyn feels adulated in their presence.)

Andway, in the cases I've heard about, he shows absolutely no awareness of his surroundings, no ability to listen to the people he's meeting, he is simply totally self-absorbed with his own importance, and spouts nonsense, or what his interlocutors take for nonsense. He does not interact with them. He is not really there. He is in his own world, his own delusional world.

And otherwise, his only contact with people is with Security, and occasionally with NEC leaders. He never attends NEC meetings, even. Until Eaglebeak's post today, I hadn't ever put it together, and realized the depths of his self-created isolation from virtually all people, other than his scripted and tightly controlled public appearances, in the form of (until they were cancelled) conference speeches and Q and A from the floor, campaign ads during quadrennial presidential contests, and in the last several years, his webcasts, where he has only a small live audience, and all questions can be tightly controlled.

And it all began at the same time that the organization was radically transformed, in a manner that doomed it, and doomed the possibility that LaRouche might actually achieve some good in the world.


Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 1:47 am:

The Great Divide: What Pushed LaRouche Over the Edge between 1972 and 1974?
Part 6

So, the question is, why? What happened in 1973? I believe that actually, it was something that occurred in late 1972, in England, to which LaRouche reacted extremely badly. And I believe that it at least plausibly might explain everything laid out above. Any takers on what that 1972 event might be (or alternate theories)? Stay tuned.


Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 6:44 am:

The only thing which makes sense to me about 1973 is that Chris White banged Carol so hard in England that she saw stars besides Big Ben every night.

Lyn Marcus became Lyn Who?

And the rest is history as they say.


Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 6:19 pm:

People have often wondered why Lyn spends so much time hating and despising mothers, strong women , feminists and any female who does not prostrate her self to worship the ground he walks on.

I thought about that and what happened to his first wife Janice. From all accounts I read it seems that Janice pulled the load while Lyn was a load in a NYC apt writing 200 page documents for the SWP to throw away. That seems to be a skill to this day which Sancho observed in NYC recently.

Lyn must have been such an influence on his ex wife that she became a pretty successful part of the woman's rights movement, a role she may have found when Lyn left the premises. Could there be any connection between lyn's endless spewing of hate in those early Campaigners about Mothers and feminists and his personal life?

This was in a local Montclair NJ newspaper last year.

Here is an exerpt for people to read:

The author of Janice LaRouche's Strategies for Women at Work, printed in 12 countries, Janice LaRouche is a ca-reer counselor who has been featured in the New York Times and in such diverse magazines as Forbes Magazine, Glamour and Cosmopolitan. She was a columnist for Family Circle and McCall's and has been interviewed on ABC-TV and CBS Radio.

LaRouche spent all of her adult life living in Manhattan before moving to Montclair three years ago. "I love living here and, happily, everything I need is in close proximity. It's like New York. I can walk to the public library where I'm involved with a wonderful writer's critique group and have made some very good friends."

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, thousands of women were part of LaRouche's women's consciousness-raising, ca-reer strategies and assertiveness training groups that sometimes ran morning, noon and night in her New York City apartment.

"As part of the Women's Movement, we fought to change laws and c ustoms, to change the objective reality of our sexist society into an egalitarian society," said LaRouche. "To an impressive extent, we did. A new national con-sciousness swept the country: the concept of women as equals in a relatively brief few years was accepted into the mainstream."

"But over the last couple of decades, many of these issues faded into the background because of a feminist backlash and political forces that have greatly diminished the movement and have pushed back many of the gains women have made in our society."

LaRouche says that she is planning future groups to provide the effective tools, techniques and strategies that women can utilize in every aspect of their lives.

Mary Kay Rosteck is a Montclair resident.

For the yutes, reading the LYM cadre school reports it seems that the best thing a yute could do for the cult is be willing to take some flames for Lyn. Really, just read some of the stuff from Debbie and the messed up yutes . This stuff is real CREEPY. I guess this had to be done before you sent out the yutes to inhale daily doses of carcinogens and toxic smoke for Lyn at intersections.


Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 7:06 pm:

What a steep downgrade from Janice to Der Helga.

Glad to see Ms. LaRouche is far more successful than her erstwhile manchild.


Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 7:07 pm:

Sex & politics 1

larouchetruth/ eaglebeak

these pages on larouche and the evolution of the org since 73-74 is very fascinating...
The "Munchrat experience" was a defining moment in the LC history. I remember once attending an iclc conf in Europe where some European memebrer complained about this "Munchrat" thing, obviously feeling cast away from the European leadership... Gabrielle Liebig answered: "But WE are "Munchrat"..." meaning the EEC. Now this "Munchrat gang" were ousted last November!
There is this other fascinating document from L Marcus: THE POLITICS OF MALE IMPOTENCE - (NCLC Internal Discussion- Aug. 16 1973) that can be read at This summarizes it all.
My point is this: from that time on, Lar has associated SEX and POLITICS. Today if one looks at some of the slogans used by the LYM-ers or even one is trying to engage a discussion, soon enough they ll attack you on your sexuality!
There is something we don't talk much about and I need more info on that: it's the relationship between larouche and Fred NEWMAN.
According to the "ex-IWP" website ( they met in the mid-60s at the Alternative University. Newman officially joined the NCLC in '73. Was he behind the scenes (as a "psy" consultant?) when lyn wrote his BP and started the ego-stripping sessions?
Dennis King has a lot of info on these two characters. In his book LL&NAF he wrote (in the "Manchourian candidate scare" chapter):
"That LaRouche knew exactly what he was doing was charged by Dr. Fred Newman, a Stanford University-trained logician-turned-Marxist-activist who worked with the NCLC during the Manchurian Candidate Scare. Newman was the author of Explanation by Description (1968), a study of how we believe what we believe. After splitting with the NCLC in mid-1974, he wrote a pamphlet analyzing how LaRouchians believe what LaRouchians believe. He charged that LaRouche had a "systematic plan" to transform his followers' ordinary middle-class values into an explicitly fascist consciousness, chiefly through the generating of an artificial paranoia at every level of the organization. (Newman went on to build his own political cult, the New Alliance Party, which through the years has mimicked LaRouche's tactics to an uncanny degree.)"


Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 7:27 pm:

Sex & politics 2

I have the impression that lyn became a "beyond psycho-analyst" under Newman's impulse or influence. (Otherwise, where did lyn caught this "psy bug" from?? …not from Hegel or Feuerbach for sure!)
Now, what is also fascinating is lyn's obsession with "male impotence"…
Knowing the guy, to me it seems to be a defensive line, maybe reflecting his own private life and insecurity. Could the fact Chris White "stole" his wife have triggered a deep hatred against this British (hence his "deprogramming" as a revenge?), and from there he developed an Apocalyptic world where ALL the British are conspiring against HIM? This "British-dominated" Weltanschauung started in 1976-77. This was also the time he was under the influence of Willis Carto and his Liberty Lobby. Now lar's anti-British obsession irritated Carto et al. For them the "problem" was the Jews and the Jews only…
However, what fascinates me is how close and intimate Carto and larouche may have been…
Not only lar espouses Carto's revisionist ideas, he was also inspired by A Rosenberg's "Myth of the 20th Century" published by Carto (where there are so many familiarities with the post'77 org new ideology), etc When they met, probably in 1975, Carto began the publication of The SPOTLIGHT and in 1979 he founded the Institute for Historical Review, which sounds a bit like… Executive Intelligence Review. Maybe a coincidence. Fascinating is the fact Carto's wife is… German! When did lyn start dating with Helga? I just wonder how much larouche's private (sexual) life has determined his "political views".
So, it seems to me that larouche was more influenced by certain shadowy figures like Newman or Carto than, say Plato or Leibniz... that his private life has determined much of the history of the LCs... as Dino has suggested in his Open letter to the ICLC (see previous posts from xlcr) After Eaglebeak's very interesting comment about larouche's asocial life and isolation: in such a situation, private (sexual) life becomes VERY important indeed. The World becomes a fantasy. It would make sense.


Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 7:58 pm:

"So, it seems to me that larouche was more influenced by certain shadowy figures like Newman or Carto than, say Plato or Leibniz ..."

Absolutely correct, not to mention by historical cranks like Alfred Rosenberg and the pushers of the Atlantis myth. LYMers should take careful note.


Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 8:04 pm:

Has anyone seen the most recent Washington Monthly? The new one is out, and I am curious as to whether Avi Klein's article got published. It doesn't appear to be on the website.


Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 8:38 pm:

I think you will know when the Washington Monthly article comes out, and won't have to ask. No... September is the annual "college ranking" and assorted material issue for Washington Monthly. Next best guess is... October issue?


Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 9:45 pm:

The suspense is almost killing me.


Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 12:24 pm:


Yeah, that dastardly Dutch-Anglo "Grain Cartel"...


Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 1:08 pm:

Howie, what a find!! To think that I certainly saw that, and worse (or rather, more that was equally insane), and didn't leave on the spot, is somewhat disconcerting. And the connection between the KGB, the "left social democrats" (whoever they are, and of what nationality(ies) ), and the grain cartels, is, exactly, what, again??

In hopes of finding some other gems, I just put in Lyndon LaRouche to Youtube's search, and most of what came up, some of what appears to have been put in by them ("senior statesman Larouche..."), was longer than I have to time to look at right now, but a short item came up that is too priceless not to pass on. This is 26 second snippet from the Sept. 6, 2006, webcast, on the boomers. I won't spoil your fun by preempting it, but will only say, right, coming from someone whose organization has had, exactly, what policy, on their boomer members having children? And forcing them to have abortions? And he can stand there and slander them with this disgusting lie (which he's repeated in a number of other webcasts) that boomers don't care about their children? And the audience doesn't jump up and run screaming out of the room?

More on LaRouche's Boomharangue later tonight, I hope.


Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 5:34 pm:

Okay. Help me out here. What is this?


Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 6:32 pm:

Tales from the Bunker, er Basement in the last days

I guess having the Avi Klein article come out in October is part of an October surprise of sorts. October also is the time for Halloween and Oktoberfest, two things dear to Leesburg. In Europe, some of the Security people are getting ready for escorting Helga to OktoberFest and are taking precautions to handle her legendary beer farts. Just take a look at the new uniforms Helga's detail have just bought and are testing:

Halloween is also a big deal and we have a real big problem in Leesburg bewteen Jeff and Al. Since today is the 10th anniversary of Lady Di's death, both wanted to dress up like Lady Di for the occasion. This turned into a real cat fight as Al told Jeff that he deserves to wear the Lady Di costume because he was the one who made some money of of it. Jeff countered that he is the one who does the media interviews, is an NEC member and if all goes well, will be the boss when Lyn bites the dust. Al had nothing to offer and grumbled that he was going to make himself a Dodi Fayed costume.

The nightly NEC meetings with Lyn may me turning into a cruel joke of sorts. The only depression going on is within the cult of personality sycophants who will follow Admiral Larouche straight to the bottom. Either that or someones words are being garbled by the Rhiengau . Take a look at this upcoming EIR cover and notice a few things.

The last time we had Goya on the cover of something was in the Beyond Psych days when Lyn was particularly crazed and the LC was being put through intensive insanity. Something else looked funny.

Take a view of the language written here and figure out what drop out from basic English 101 wrote this sentence.

"Instead of the delusions of many, the only concern of people who are still capable of reacting sanely to the present crisis is, LaRouche states, "how to dump the present world monetary-financial system, and quickly replace it with an echo of the original Bretton Woods system.""

But wait, there's more!

(Message edited by xlcr4life on August 31, 2007)


Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 6:34 pm:

Look at the EIR cover from a distance and notice that this reads like a declaration and Confession of Lyn to everyone as he is getting ready to say goodbye.

"The State of our union
The end of our delusion"

The Goya art work is called "Cheerful Fools" OMG!, Lyn put the LYM on the cover and told them outright that this is all a bad joke.

Yutes, I do not think that you print anymore EIRs, you just email them. Can someone print that cover up and pose with it for a picture nest to a card table shrine? That would make a great cover picture for more articles on the cult. You can't get more goofy than that.

I did find out that there is a rationale explanation for all of this. You see at the NEC meeting Lyn began to pound the table and yap about how he is under attack by Al Gore via the internet through Rupert Murdoch. Lyn began to scream

"Look what we are doing to Al Gore. He is desperate. " and "By the way Nancy, I want that Disperate Alegre by Goya on the next cover of EIR.

The LYM members at the meeting, clueless as usual thought that Lyn said "I want that desperate Al Gore guy on the next cover of EIR". Unbeknowst to the LYM, the joke is on them and they do not yet get it.


Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 10:57 pm:


I don't know what the Voice of the Country/Countryside/Campania is, but the author of the article you asked about, Claudio Celani, is a bitter-ender or dead-ender or whatever, an Italian national, who lives in Wiesbaden and works in the Wiesbaden LaRouche org "center."

He has been the author of a few other startling exposes (sic) over the years, and is also a cartoonist for LaRouche publications. Wait! Are there any LaRouche publications?! Well, when there were, he was.

Meanwhile, LaRouche's obsessions about John Train also found expression recently in this psychedelic offering from LaRouche and LPAC:


Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 10:58 pm:

Here's the text of LaRouche-on-Train:

LaRouche Urges Caution on Russian "Train Salon" Speculation

August 30, 2007 (LPAC)--Lyndon LaRouche today urged caution, in attempting to sort out the complicated circumstances, surrounding the murders of a number of prominent Russian and Russian-based journalists. LaRouche was responding to reports from several well-placed U.S. intelligence sources, who said that some of the journalists who have been lionized by the John Train Foundation and like-minded Anglo-American spook circles, were not, during their lifetimes, necessarily "Train salon" assets. The sources singled out two murdered journalists, Anna Politkovskaya and Paul Klebnikov. Politkovskaya was gunned down outside of her Moscow apartment in Oct. 2006. She was the recipient of a John Train "civil courage" award shortly before her murder, and the British media, led by the London Economist, has tried repeatedly (as recently as the Aug. 30, 2007 issue of The Economist) to link her assassination to her critical coverage of President Vladimir Putin.
However, sources reported that she was working on many other stories at the time and during her career, and such simple-minded links are always wrong. Paul Klebnikov, who was the Moscow bureau chief of Forbes magazine, was assassinated in July 2004. He devoted much of his work to exposing the Chechen separatists. Klebnikov was married to John Train's daughter. He, too, the sources cautioned, was not necessarily a part of the Train project democracy efforts, and was a highly respected Moscow-based reporter and editor.

Lyndon LaRouche emphasized that such cautionary notes are of particular importance at this moment, given the British oligarchy's hysterical campaign to drive a wedge between the United States and Russia. One senior U.S. intelligence official noted that, if the U.S.-Russian strategic partnership, proposed by President Putin at Kennebunkport, is adopted as U.S. policy, it will lead to continental Europe also opening up deeper collaboration with Russia--and "this will finish off the British." Lyndon LaRouche agreed, emphasizing that the U.S.-Russia partnership is an existential issue for the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy, and they will go to any length to stop it. Sensitive issues, like the Politkovskaya and Klebnikov murders, in this context, must be treated with a cautionary note.

LaRouche said: follow the facts of the cases, but do not jump to hasty conclusions. Just because John Train tries to exploit these two murders for an Anglo-Dutch "new Cold War" political agenda does not mean that people have to be stupid enough to take it on face value.

Jeepers. Since LaRouche has already accused Dennis King and Avi Klein of being part of the "Train salon" of journalists, what should we interpret this outburst as? A threat? Or just another case of LaRouche blowing smoke (or smoking blow)?


Posted on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 3:02 pm:

Here's something depressing.


Posted on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 6:11 pm:

"I am part of the LaRouche Youth Movement & the more I see such idiocy in society, the more I realize that Lyndon LaRouche was right. For more info..."

LL is/was always right. It is an axiom, proposed by Kepler. Remember: Lyn successfully predicted the outcome of a coin flip 594,375,820,001,1593 times in a row. What more needs to be said?

He is above all possible reproach. Everything boils down to ignoring statistics and concentrating on world historical events.

Pick your favorate flavor of Kool Aid. Choose something sensible, something that brings joy to the palette. Then drink until the white light calls you home.


Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 12:35 am:

Loopy Lyndy's Latest Lunacy

Folks, the cavalry has arrived, help is on the way, Loopy Lyndy has made a 10-minute address to the nation, on his website. I kid you not, he has issued a rallying cry for people in their millions to rise up and demand that Congress pass his emergency legislation to prevent the New New Dark Age from starting in September.

Now, I couldn't get the video link to work, so I had to content myself with the transcript version. But to hear him tell it, the bill, the The Homeowners and Bank Protection Act of 2007, must be passed by no later than the end of September, or all hell will break lose, and then get worse, starting on October 1.

Which means, in the unlikely, but still possible, scenario in which both houses of Congress do not pass veto-proof versions of LaRouche's bill by September 30, that we will have an airtight prediction to hold old Lyndy, and his followers, to. If, God forbid, the bill is not passed, and we collectively take that gamble that LaRouche is wrong and this is the not financial crisis to end all financial crises, which requires putting all banks under Federal government "protection," freezing all mortgages until the values of the properties decline to their true worth and all derivatives are gone, etc., we can all hold our breath as Sept. 30 passes over into October 1. And if nothing happens, I propose we can afford to be generous, and we can give Lyndy days, perhaps even a few weeks, for the dire consequences of failing to pass this bill by the end of September to manifest themselves.

If he's right, he's right. And if he's wrong, and nothing much happens in October that was much different than whatever happens in September, then we will have a real-time "crucial experiment" on the validity of Loppy Lyndy's prognostications, predictions and other species of buncombe and baloney. So, let the forecasts begin.

The new speech, video, if you can make it work, and transcript, are both on the front LPAC page.


Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 2:05 am:


OK, folks, the time has come to unveil the hidden paradox within LaRouche's latest pronouncements, though, in truth, this has been operative for a long time. But the present conjuncture (wow, that phrase rings a bell, didn't we use to have a "conjunctural crisis"?) is a perfect time to excavate this paradox, dig it up, wipe off the dirt, assemble the pieces, and present it to the world—especially to any members of the LYM who haven't completely lost their critical faculties.

Because the LaRouche Paradox doesn't require one to disbelieve anything that LaRouche is saying, either about how deep he claims this crisis is, or about any of his drastic proposals to prevent the collapse of the millennium, it cannot be ignored or rejected by LaRouche followers--it is a thought experiement that accepts their premises. It's really a fascinating paradox, and probably not all that shocking to those who haven't crossed over the LaRouche event horizon, and ultimately, even those who have will implicitly recognize its validity. Anyway, with this introduction, let's let 'er roll.

To appreciate the paradox, one has to join with me in a thought experiment. The first premise of this experiment is that everything LaRouche is claiming about the present financial crisis is true: that barring his proposals today, this financial crisis will unravel, destroy the banks, lead to millions being evicted, social chaos, and a financial unraveling so great that it destroys most economic activity and creates another New Dark Age. I believe that's a fair description of what he claims. The second premise is that the only way to avert this dire fate is by passing the Home Owners and Bank Protection Act, which calls for: putting all the banks under federal protection, freezing all mortgages, writing off the "cancerous debt obligations of mortgage-backed securities and derivatives," and related provisions. The third premise, expressed in his web address to the nation tonight, is that this bill must pass Congress with veto-proof margins, in the next 29 days, before the end of September, or it will be too late to avert the crisis.

Here's the paradox. Nobody, but nobody but LaRouche presently believes that the present financial crisis has even the remotest potential, much less the certainty, to unravel as far and as deep as he forecasts. So, the only way to get his legislation through must first be to convince a 2/3's majority of Congress (and the American public) that it is necessary--and that extremely quickly, since we have exactly four weeks to a) convince enough members, b) draft an actual bill, in both branches, (c introduce the bill in both branches, d) consider the bill in committees in both branches, e) report the bill out, discuss it, and pass it-- which requires proving to them that the present crisis is, in fact, as serious as he says it is.

However, it is intrinsically impossible to "prove" a forecast like that. At least in the present situation. What evidence could one possibly adduce? The world believes that there is a significant quantity of bad mortgage debt around, and there are lots of proposals on the table from Congress to the White House, to mitigate the impact of that on the banks. The stock market has gone down some, but hasn't in any sense yet truly "crashed," it's only back to where it was not long ago (and all of the run-up in recent months has been due for a "correction" anyway). With governments standing by to provide liquidity as needed to prevent a panic from setting in, what in the world could LaRouche point to convince them that nothing they are trying to do has any chance of working? Even if, ultimately, he would prove to be right?


Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 2:13 am:


In short, the paradox is that nothing short of letting the crisis unfold, and seeing it blossom into the depths of collapse that LaRouche has forecast, could possibly convince people—at that point, of course, after the fact—that his analysis had been correct. The only conceivable way that things could turn out differently would be if a group of very respected economists, even if a minority, were to come forward, and show, with detailed data on the depths of exposures that banks and other financial institutions had that could never be covered, why they believed this, and if they were to quickly convince a consensus of experts. But there is zero sign of this happening.

LaRouche's Paradox is that he is compelled by his own analysis to say that Congress must pass his bill in September, without providing any mechanism, any believable scenario, by which any of the members, much less 2/3 of them, could be expected to suddenly become convinced of the truth of LaRouche's forecast, and then of the viability and necessity of his proposed solution.

It is so utterly obvious to anyone who hasn't sunk out of sight beneath the LaRouche event horizon that of course, not a single member of either branch of Congress from either party will even seriously consider LaRouche's bill, much less support it, much less that 2/3 of members in both branches will support it, in September or ever, that the notion that even a hard-core LaRouchie, much less a newer recruit, actually believes that LaRouche has a chance to get this passed in September, beggars the imagination. And, in fact, it is hard to believe that any of them really do. Among other things, if LaRouche's prediction comes true, and the crisis hits as predicted, even what limited ability the LaRouche organizations have to raise money now will dry up as their base comes on hard times.

So, the LaRouche Hypothesis dictates that if LaRouche proves right in his three premises, there is no possibility of convincing the policy makers, above all Congress, to act in time to avert it. In which case, all is already lost. Sure, the exercise of trying to warn them must continue, but nobody should have the slightest illusion that it will be successful, and members should beginning to plan how to "sauve qui peut," which is French for "save themselves who can."

A footnote: LaRouche has no apparent awareness not only of the existence of the Paradox, but even of the issue that the Paradox brings up. For, unlike a hypothetical instance where a group of economists who held LaRouche's views how might try to convince others with a detailed, data-based anslysis, he (LaRouche) doesn't even make any attempt to convince anyone of the truth of his contentions. For LaRouche, it is enough for him, who has no credibility on Capitol Hill (according to everyone but LaRouche and his organization) or some credibility among some number of legislators (according to LaRouche and his organization), to just state his dire prediction, bringing not a single shred of evidence or other reason why believes that, to the table.

So, not merely is he claiming something that the rest of the world would utterly disbelieve on the face of it, he doesn't even attempt to indicate why they should believe it. He simply states: "We are faced with the greatest financial crisis, globally, which has been known to humanity in centuries. This goes far beyond the experience of the immediate period following the World War, such as the Great Depression of 1930s, but we can handle it." That's it. "We are faced…" Like it's so self-evident, he has merely to say it. Right, like it's so self-evident that no one else in the world agrees with him.

LYM members, the above demonstration poses you the challenge: smell the coffee, or drink the cool-aid. Your choice.


Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 10:05 am:

Howie, the German yute who loves Lyn more than his father is a part of the picture which does not get mouch airplay. The reason is that this brigns up certain parts of life which influence younger people into making decisions. On many occasions I have said that people often go into the LC/LYM to also get away from something. I think yocan find that true in many things in life.

In talking to many former members I find that certain relationships people have with their parents, pressures of school and uncertainty over what to do with your life make choosing the LC/LYM seem liek a rationale choice. It appears ratioanle because their is what one thinks is a defined direction and goals and let's face it, a psuedo father figure of authority. Most cults and sects work on the same principal to a degree.

Also working in a yute's mind is that joining the cult is a way of saying FU to many people, including your parents. One of the worst thing a parent can do is to ridicule your kids beliefs when thay show a concern over an issue. I am by no means any kind of therapist or expert, howver, I liken this to telling your kids that it is OK to make friends, just be very carefull in whom you associate with. Many of our members have entered different associations and professions after leaving and have found a home for their talents and concerns.

If anyone here thinks that what I am saying here is somewhat autobiographical, you are correct.

In my discussions with many former members you find out that uncertainity of life in the 1960s, economic disruptions in the 1970s coupled with family issues will cause an 18 year old with zero life experiences to make decisions which are later regretted. I can make fun of yutes and insult them all day long, howevr, I was once a yute and I certainly spent more time in the LC than many of them have been in the LYM. Thus, I will critique and will cajole, but I understand why some will cling to this blanket till letting go once and for all.

Intersetingly, in the internet world we find that the LYM. contrary to what the yutes father figure Lyn tells them, is not viewed as a potent force of world historical figures, but more as bafoons, losers and now, sad and emotionally troubled individuals.

Consider this statement from one of Lyn's mortal enemies , the infamous CFR.


"When troubled young followers of radical Lyndon LaRouche tried to break up a meeting on international banking, they were effectively escorted from the premises.

We never gave in to bullying."


Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 10:07 am:

You see yutes, Lyn really understand this principal and tells you over and over that for him to rebuild his cult of personality, he needs 18 to 25 year olds who do not know anything, but have some issues. You rarely recruit members older than that. When you do, you find out that they are often running away from different things like being a father, bad marriages and being ridiculed for always thinking in wild conspiracies of fancy.

Sadly, the only older generation which clings to Lyn and his delusions are a hundred or so deadenders in Leesburg and the regional NCs. They are in a paradox where they have decades invested in this lunacy, not a dime in FU money and not ready to face the mirror and say that they made a mistake in their life. All of their friends who joined with them in the early years left at least 20 years ago and have careers, children, houses and most importantly, another chance at life.

Yutes, when you are at a card table shrine or a carcinogen filled intersection with a THREE DECADE member, ask them if thirty years ago what they imagined their future to be. For some of the THREE DECADE members whose pictures I posted, they were told by Lyn on that fateful morning in his Sutton Place Town house that they would be at card table shrines and intersections for ever.

LTruth, I submit that as a 100 % accurate prediction of Lyn.}


Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 12:09 pm:

"I was once a yute and I certainly spent more time in the LC than many of them have been in the LYM. Thus, I will critique and will cajole, but I understand why some will cling to this blanket till letting go once and for all."

This touches on something I have been thinking for a while since I have read a former member disclaiming his long LaRouche period as if it were merely an unsightly blemish on an otherwise sterling career. I get on this message board and act as if I had no role in any of this LaRouche nonsense. But when I was a LaRouchite I was a habitual liar, hater, thief, slanderer, bully, and prideful know-nothing steeped in sarcasm, fear, and self-loathing. I would hide behind a frontgroup like the FEF to raise money for LaRouche, I would ridicule what remaining friends I had who thought I was in a cult and I occasionally hounded them into forking money over for some mobilization or other, I made antisemitic jokes and other hateful remarks, I divorced myself entirely from my family and all my benefactors, and above all I squandered whatever talents I had so that I could imagine myself a genius while spending twelve hours a day in public or on the phone selling subscriptions to whacked out and often undelivered periodicals.

So I am no innocent when it comes to LaRouche's criminality as I took a willing hand in it. Just thought I would state that for the record so that perhaps I will have more humility in continuing to comment upon the demonstrably evil LaRouche cult.


Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 7:26 pm:

LTruth, if you want a real humdinger of an interview with Lyn, check this one out.

"Q: What's not doubted? The veracity of Dick Cheney being a child of Satan?

LaRouche: I think that's generally understood what that means, exactly as I described it. Exactly. I don't just use words: I'm a scientist. When I use a term, I qualify what I mean by it, and my qualification of that terminology, the way I've gone into depth on this, I think is probably very high grade, in terms of veracity.

I—I apol. You're a scientist. I apol—I, um.

We apologize for not telling our audience. That's actually our lack of foresight. We forgot to introduce your credentials. But, because I don't really know them, you're welcome to share them with the audience.

LaRouche: Well, I happen to be the most successful long-range economic forecaster in the past 30 years.

And you're a scientist.

LaRouche: When everybody else is wrong on this one. When the opposition has been wrong. So, I think my—the issue of 1971, some of the issues of the middle of the 1970s; my role in, for example, the SDI. One of the things I'm most unpopular for, is, I sold the idea of SDI to President Reagan and his circle, and we worked on it, and I became very unpopular because of that. ..."

"Q: Do you believe in private property, sir?

LaRouche: What do you mean by private property?

Property owned by private citizens and not subject to government interference.

LaRouche: I do not believe that private property is a self-evident right. I believe it is a right provided by society. It is not a right which is independent, but is inferior to and subsumed by society. In other words, if we, in society, decide that the general interest, the General Welfare is served by promoting private property as one of the options working in society, that's it. Therefore, it is—private property is not a primary right, it is a derivative right.

[overtalking] Well, you're living in a heavily guarded mansion in Virginia—

LaRouche: [continuing] It is not a right under natural law. It is a right under positive law.

Well, sir, you live in a heavily guarded mansion in Virginia. Does the government have a right, or does some outside force have a right—

LaRouche: I never had a heavily guarded mansion!"

There are so many great things in this interview to read. The clueless LYM place this on the LPAC web site not knowing how funny this one is.

Yutes, go ask your local NC what the phrase "Ibykus Farm" means and read this before you ask.


Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 10:19 pm:

RE: The Georgetown interview

All in all, he actually held up fairly well and sounded semi-reasonable, here and there. Obviously he could have done far better, but the kids doing the interview were skewering him big time.

Without those precious SDI delusions, his status would probably revert back to equilibrium level -- he'd simply be a "normal" paranoid schizophrenic living in a cardboard box.


Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 1:14 am:

Well, if it wasn't heavily guarded, it wasn't for lack of trying. In other words--if it wasn't heavily guarded, it just means all those guards wandering around were incompetent.

There's a marvelous moment in Ghostbusters in which Bill Murray says to someone who questions him, "Back off,man, I'm a scientist!"

There you have it--back off, folks, he's a scientist. And he doesn't just use words, he violates them.


Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 10:05 am:

Re LaRouche's latest rescue plan to stop the Apocalypse, you could safely say one thing about all his searing analyses, firm predictions and visionary policy initiatives of lo, these many years: Never in doubt, frequently in error.

But their real purpose of course is to recruit or galvanize or string along a few more faithful for a few more rounds of frenetic activity masked as world leadership.


Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 10:23 am:

My last post concerning LaRouche, Ken Kronberg, and PMR included excerpts from a 2005 NC conference call--a conference call on which Kronberg was present, as indicated elsewhere in the transcript--in which LaRouche denounced PMR (=Kronberg) for running a scam against the organization--this from the man whose "entities" had racked up hundreds of thousands, ultimately millions, of dollars in debt to the man he was attacking....

That was November 2005--but, as I think has been made clear, such savage attacks against Kronberg were commonplace.

Today's post features excerpts from the transcript of LaRouche's May 28, 2006 remarks to an internal conference Wiesbaden, at which EEC members and EC members were present (the European equivalent of the NEC and NC).

Before we get to that, however, let me note that (1) what was transcribed for the briefing did not include LaRouche's viperish attacks on Ed Spannaus as an "enemy" of Helga's; (2) it also did not include the arguments between LaRouche and varius members of the EEC and EC--clearly auguring the mass exodus (or purge?) of the EEC/ EC six months later; BUT (3) the entire internal conference is recorded on CD, and the CDs are drifitng around the organization, so kids, if you want to hear it all, ask the grownups to share the CD with you.

See what happens then, in terms of open discussion and free exchange of ideas.

Just for atmosphere, the present post includes a good deal of LaRouchean verbiage not immediately related to the topic of interest.



Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 10:28 am:


{Here are Lyn's opening remarks in a lengthy meeting with the European Committee, on May 28, 2006. The subsequent discussion will be forthcoming as soon as possible. *UNEDITED*}

[ellipses--this post comes from the middle of the remarks--ed.]

LAROUCHE: …So, the change in the organization is a result in the U.S., and the improvement is spectacular. The change comes first of all, from the fact that the Youth Movement changes the organization. As long as the Youth Movement is done the way I've prescribed, it works. Any other approach to a Youth Movement {doesn't} work. It's a failure.
Because, you must deal with this population, remember, you're dealing with three generations. You're dealing with a Baby-Boomer generation, largely now concentrated between 55 and 65 years of age. They're about to go out of power, hey're at the end of their professional careers. And they were brainwashed. They were brainwashed and mentally destroyed by the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which was a deliberate intention of the British and certain people in the United States, at the end of World War II, to eliminate Roosevelt. They couldn't eliminate the effect of Roosevelt's success, with the older adult generation, our generation. They couldn't do it. They could corrupt them, they could intimidate them, but they could not make them essentially rotten. They said, "We're going to make their babies rotten! We're going to make the children born to the returning veterans rotten." How? "We're going to have a socialstudies and art program, based on existentialist conceptions of sophistry."[Emphasis added--highlighting features of a true paranoiac--ed.]
So you had the entire population of Western Europe, and the United States, and other parts of the world subjected to brainwashing in this form: the Congress for Cultural Freedom. Based on the existentialist model, which was known here in Germany in terms of the Frankfurter Schule. Or [schulen?]. And that's what was done.

So therefore, you had a population which, by sophistry, by adapting to the mood of "you have to be an anti-communist." "You have to be a passionate anti-communist! You have to be totally irrational about it! You have to be pure rage about it. You have know that you can be crushed if you don't think in a certain way. If you talk differently than the other guy in the class, you're going to be suspected!" [More true in the Labor Committee than in your average office, to say the least...ed.] And it was started at the little kiddie level, with things like Dr. Spock's book on how to raise a child. So there was a systematic {brainwashing} of an entire generation: And this came out as the 68er phenomenon.



Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 10:41 am:

LAROUCHE (contd): Now, the 68er phenomenon had certain specifics. The specific is, first of all, concentrated in the United States, on the universities which were associated with Ivy League standards, that is, universities which are regarded as the places from which product is emitted to enter the professions, government, and so forth. The leaders of society. So the 68ers, the ones who went through these educational institutions, in higher education in particular, these are the ones who are the most rotten, the most hip in this process. Because they were targeted....
That's exactly what the Cult of Delphi did to the families of the Greeks of Athens, that led to the Peloponnesian War. This is sophistry in the extreme. It's a study of sophistry, applied to modern society. These people have no morality whatsoever. None! They have pragmatic morality. And the typification in science of course, as I referred to again today, this thing, is this Einstein-Born correspondence. In which Born, who was technically qualified as a scientist, was actually an anti-scientist by the time he got into the debate. He'd lost his soul. And there was Einstein, who had been one of his teachers, and he's on the other side. He no longer believes in the existence of principles. He believes in the existence of mathematical formulas, of tricks, of procedures. But not in an idea, as such….
[Let's see--from 1968 to the Cult of Delphi and the Pelopponesian War to Einstein-Born without pausing for breath--some might think this shows a profound mastery of the sweep of world history, but some might think it's indicative of profound mental disease--ed.]
So therefore, the point was with the Youth Movement, to deal with this problem, you have the Youth Movement is--. The adult movement, the Baby-Boomers are generally immoral. [Emphasis added--just to highlight LaRouche's respect for the people who have been with him for decades--ed.]....
The only chance we have for civilization, is with the education of young adults. Now, what we have, is not the ability to take the entire young adult generation and educate them, directly. We don't. We have to develop a cadre of people who exemplify, and spread the disease that we're creating. We have to infect them with the disease. [A better metaphor than he knows--ed.]
And this has made a fundamental change.... We have people in the Youth Movement who are a key factor in educating the Congress. Who are working closely with the members of the U.S. Senate and committees of the Congress; who are influential all over the United States in their functions. The entire auto industry thing, centers around us: no one else. The question of the reorganizing the U.S. military now centers around us.[Another clinical example, this time of megalomania/narcissism--ed.]
And the youth are the means by which we do it. Because, as you know, there are only a handful of us, who are really senior in this area, and can handle it. And it's the youth who make the difference. Why? Because we did the right thing about developing them. And the right thing about using their talents. That is, don't try to swaddle them with education. Forget it.[I think we can consider this part of the approach a total success. Swaddled with education they're not--ed.] Concentrate on the development of the creative powers of mind, in these two areas: physical science, and Classical singing, choral singing.



Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 10:54 am:

LAROUCHE (contd): ...And this development of the mind, because you're dealing with a social process, and social relation, and social collaboration, has to be complemented by the development of scientific capabilities. That's what we're doing.
Now, why did we have to clean up? [Yes, you're right, this seems like a non sequitur, but--ed.] Well, we've had a lot of problems which are, on both sides of the Atlantic, which are
characteristic of various parts of the history of the organization. You have the '77 through 1982 interval, in which the organization was taken over by some enemies. But among the things which happened, was you had an absolute idiot, who was
running his little firm, his computer firm, and the whole organization was enslaved to this computer firm. Now, what he was doing, when I saw the records when I saw the records when I got back for the first time, that is, to see it in '81, [inaudible], I looked at the records they gave me and I saw this--remember, I'm an old hand at this, at this kind of thing. I used to deal professionally with dealing with bankruptcies. I dealt with them in Canada, I dealt with them in the United States, I dealt with them elsewhere. And I looked at this pile of paper they presented to me on their financial problem; it took me about two hours. I had an absolute swindle, an absolute fraud, a credit fraud!
[Let's recap--it's May 2006, and the problems of the orgnaization will now be traced back to 1977-1981, and someone who ran a computer company and who, LIKE EVERYONE LAROUCHE EVER ENCOUNTERS, turned out to be no good, a fraud, a scam, a ---.

In the midst of this diversion, we learn, from an extraordinarily incoherent passage, that LaRouche is a master at dealing with bankruptcies--not just in the U.S., but in Canada, and not just in Canada, but "elsewhere." Hey, kids! Here's a research topic for you--put together the info on LaRouche's consulting career.

Now, it may be that LaRouche "dealt with bankruptcies"--but every single operation that he had anything to do with personally folded, went flat, flamed out, went belly up, leaving millions in debts behind it. Not his fault though. Don't believe me? Just read his letter to supporter/lender Elizabeth Sexton, when she wanted her money back. The letter is part of the file in the Alexandria federal trial. LaRouche wrote: You want your money back? Ask Henry Kissinger, and then he explained how Kissinger's harassment made it impossible to repay all those millions in debts.... It showed up in the federal trial as evidence of guilty knowledge on LaRouche's part.--ed]



Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 11:06 am:

LAROUCHE (contd): What they were doing, Andy, in order to get work, would underbid. That means, he was going to lose money on the job. Therefore, to keep the cash flow, he had to get more people working for his firm, and take more jobs. He had to keep increasing the cash flow input, to cover up for the fact that, overall, his organization was bankrupt from the beginning! That was one part of the problem. That was why it blew up. This thing was never profitable. It was bankrupt from the beginning; it was bankrupt in onception, and the bankruptcy was in the mind of the owner. And the bankruptcy was then shared with a guy who'd been taken over by the government: Costas. Costas had been involved in a legal case; he cut a deal with the Federal government to get out of the legal case: He went to work for them against us. [Absolutely typical LaRouche--the man to whom he refers was second in command in the organization, the "chief of staff," placed there by LaRouche, reporting to LaRouche. But now--1980, that was--LaRouche finds he needs a scapegoat to explain how the organization blew hundreds of thousands of dollars on the 1980 New Hampshire campaign and barely won a single vote. (A very interesting story.) So suddenly Costas has been turned into an agent of the U.S. government through what? The Mountain Lakes case? Some people involved in that are still in the organization today, kiddies, so I don't think we want to claim they're all government agents. Do we? Also, please note that in 1980 LaRouche was declaring that Costas had been a Bulgarian KGB agent--hmmm. Can we keep our government agencies straight, please? --ed.]

And he was controlling the organization in the United States while I was here [LaRouche means in Wiesbaden--ed.]

So, he and [Andy], together, began to introduce the concept of "business organization." That we must have a "business type" of organization. Now a business type in a political organization, it's not a business, it's a cult! Because political organizations are based on ideas, on the development of ideas, on the characteristic of the human mind.
Business organization, today, is worse than it was years ago when I was dealing with bankrupt firms. And I dealt with a lot of them. I can tell you all about bankruptcy: because I was there, and I had many clients whom I had to bail out of bankruptcy. [Jeez--too bad Ken Kronberg wasn't one of them--ed.] I know how it smells. I know what the disease is. And the disease has become {worse} in the present generation, than it was in the previous generation. [What hasn't?--ed.]

...And [Andy] is a perfect case of it: The entire organization was {reorganized}, from '77 into '81, into this idea of "the business" concept. And you had refractions of it--Uwe and others, went through here. What was spilled over, the orders of how run the organization
here, was being dictated from there, by Costas and something, and it was wrong! Since I was here most of the time during that period, I didn't see it firsthand. But when I got back and
looked at these figures, I knew exactly what had gone wrong. It was wrong!



Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 11:18 am:

LAROUCHE (contd): You don't run a political organization as a business organization! You don't apply what are called "business principles" to run a political organization! Or, you don't have a political organization.
And if your income is depending upon your political activity, you're not going to get much income if you continue that way.
And the problem was, we had in the regions--we sort of killed it in the National Center, but even after 2000, in the regions we still had a sense that these were separate organizations, and a group of separate organizations with a certain structure are going to run the organization! And the organization kept {dying}! As a result. The idea of structure and group leadership of that type was the cause of our financial problems. Because, we could have cured the problems otherwise.

And the problem was, that when you don't have an open discussion of ideas, throughout a political organization as a whole, you don't have ideas. Because ideas are based, like music, on the interaction of minds. And therefore, the open, free and open interaction of minds, with no special kinds of divisions, expect the division of leadership which is something in itself--but leadership is essentially facilitating all people coming into the discussion and using their minds. You don't have some people making decisions and other people carrying out orders. Yes, you have a command structure for action. But the ideas that determine what you're going to command, has to be determined by a group process, of discussion of ideas--not discussion of orders.

[I probably don't need to point out the simultaneous hilarity and bitter irony of this paragraph, but still—open discussion of ideas? When did that last occur in the organization? Interaction of minds? That's the one thing LaRouche cannot stand—that's why he never puts himself in a position where that can happen, and when it does, he visibly panics. You don't have people making decisions and others following orders? That right, kids?

And another thing--if LaRouche is the greatest mind of the millennium, and the greatest, most potent leader of the century, why does the organization fall apart on virtually a daily basis? Why is the leadership structure always a mess? Either he's not running it--in which case he's no leader--or he is running it--in which case he's no leader.—ed.]

Now, what happens is, is that when you go into this business type of organization in a political organization, {you kill the mind}; and you get stupid people out of it. You stupefy them. You destroy their creative powers, their insight. Now, when we bring the youth into the situation, as we did in the States, and you develop the youth operation, {they kick butt.} And that is good! They have lack of respect for seniors; that is excellent! That is morality. They kick •••! That's good!
There's right kicking of •••, and wrong kicking of •••, of course, but kicking of ••• is necessary. Just have to know where to aim to shoot, and what time, on what occasion. [That, ladies and gentlemen, is the theory which underlies LaRouche's program of vicious attacks on longtime supporters and associates. Especially the part about "no respect." It may seem great to you kids, but to the longtime members, it seems like torture.--ed.]



Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 11:33 am:

LAROUCHE (cont): Therefore, what happens is, you have a process of intellectual stultification.
Now, the reason we are able to change some of these things--I went through this--. What I went through in the process in recent times, I went through a process in the U.S. of {busting up} the so-called "group organization." I busted it up! We don't have a group organization any more in the United States; we eliminated it. And the bankruptcy of PMR, the perennial bankruptcy of PMR is an example of the problem. The worst mistakes, were the idea of using PMR as a model of business! A print shop as a business that's going to support the organization: Never works!! And you could see what a mess they made: Every decision I've seen that they made, in terms of general policy decision, was wrong! And there were some legal problems there, too. As a result of very stupid kinds of decisions. But PMR's collapse, actually because people were foolish enough not to take my instructions on the thing--actually in 2000, or 1997-1998--it actually went virtually bankrupt. On the basis of a business decision, a so-called business opportunity--and they brought down our entire organization, its financial structure. We lost our subscription base, on which we had depended, as a result of this piece of nonsense.
And it was done as a "business decision." Based on group ideas. Doesn't work.



Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 11:40 am:


Everything in LaRouche's remarks is a lie, pretty much--PMR did not bring down the organization, the organization brought down PMR. I mean, how could a company that charged under cost for most of its work for the org--and no, I'm not talking about the FEC-regulated entites like LPAC and L04 that the author of the July 31 "Simple Facts" memo obsessed about--how could a company that charged under cost bring down the organization it was charging below cost to, and which wasn't paying even that?

Even though, as I understand it, PMR wrote off mountains of debt at the end of every year, those debts are still real and still owing (as I understand it). Yoicks! Now there's something to worry about.

But back to the point: Here we have Lyndon "I have dealt with many bankruptcies" LaRouche accusing PMR of having brought the organization to its knees and having lost the subscription base. What's that about? Very simple--PMR stopped paying the postage money to mail out the subscriptions. The postage money, as any Jr. Grade businessman knows, is the responsibility of the customer, not the printer. But in this case the customer was ... Lyndon "bankruptcies" LaRouche. So when the printer said, Hey! I'm not "fronting" for your postage any more, that was that. Bye bye New Federalist sub base.

(Later, of course, PMR stopped printing New Federalist for free. Then it was Bye Bye New Federalist, period.)

And did I see LaRouche complaining about whose stupid idea was it about "A print shop as a business that's going to support the organization"? Well, Lyn, gee, I don't know, but if you didn't want the print shop supporting the organization, why did the print shop support the organization for 30 years? Why didn't you instruct your subordinates to pay the print shop, on time, at regular printing industry rates (and not just when the FEC was peering over their shoulders)?

By the way, that business opportunity LaRouche refers to--though he seems to date it to 2000, and then to the '90s--was the occasion on which, in 2001, PMR and WorldComp moved their operations to a new office with higher rent. The problem was, it turned out they couldn't afford the rent. Guess why?

I mean, PMR got it coming and going--here it's being attacked for "supporting the organization." I don't think Ken Kronberg got the memo that LaRouche would prefer that he not support the organization,do you?

FINALLY: In every venue, no matter how irrelevant, LaRouche can be seen going off on the same things--everyone has betrayed him, the leadership of the org is no good, the Baby Boomers are useless, but luckily he is running the world--and oh, by the way, Ken Kronberg--forget about 30 years of sacrifice for me--I've just noticed that you brought the organization to its knees. I would've noticed earlier, with all my experience with bankruptcies and all, except that I was [pick one] (a) out of town/in Wiesbaden/"en route" (b) in federal prison (c) lied to by my most trusted associates (d) surrounded by KGB/CIA/MI5/Mossad agents (e) too busy running the world.


Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 4:02 pm:

Brewncue, where are you?

I am lost, and need your help. Please turn your attention to:

It is titled, "When Fate Hangs on a Forecast". But the following section troubles me -- I feel so weak, so small, so incapable of grasping the true meaning:

"Competent forecasting obliges the forecaster to consider the boundary-conditions characteristic of the kind of processes being considered. Thus, the Cartesian or neo-Cartesian projects statistical forms of mechanical action confined within the bounds of gambling expert Galileo's space-time. Since the heredity of the Cartesian method is that of Sarpi's empiricism, no principled boundary condition is taken into account. For Descartes and his devotees, the future is the indefinite projection of the present. In the Riemannian approach, we start from the principled definition of the discovered boundary conditions, and turn our attention, then, to the "object" whose behavior is determined, in the manner Riemann defined the function of a sonic shock-wave, by the manner in which it is approaching that boundary condition."

I am not potent enough to decipher this. Help, please.


Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 4:46 pm:

Wow! I tried reading that epic and the only thing Lyn has success in long range forecasting is losing millions and making people go bankrupt.

Only Larouche can buy raw land in Leesburg, years ahead of developers , lose it for not paying the notes and see land we owned end up worth something like a 100 MILLION dollars.

What would be nice to nail down is a very detailed description with purchase price, plans , addresses and how it was lost of the many parcels of land which we bought in the 1980s.

I have a beginning list of people who we bankrupted who associated with Lyn and the LC. It is so sad that I can not post it without deep sadness for the victims and members.

Lyn does kno, bankruptcy, collapse and depression.


Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 4:50 pm:

Since the German LYM posted on his blog about his life, he may have violated the directive about not posting on the web.

We are going to do him a big favor and reprint what he posted so that after you laugh at a yute, you can understand how he or she got there.

That evil CFR was right on the money.

"Yesterday I agreed to go for some crappy lunch for my older sister at some crappy pub restaurant. I say they were crappy because they couldn't even cook a burger right. It went ok and I was bored by the meaningless conversation, and then my father decided to say what I do, he told everyone I was in a political cult, and upon my disagreement continued to insist, and upon my pointing out reality, a case of "look, off he goes, doesn't listen to anyone's opinion." Well, lets look at the evidence of his ability as a father. The attack was childish at best, malicious or retarded might be better words to describe it. So I was •••••• off, still am. Now, an adult with a phd, who teaches for a living, one would think he would be interested in truth, one would think he had even once tried to ask me about what I do, or even about what the british press says. No, a typical underling, preferred to believe a very flawed slander article in the Times (UK) and not even look into anything that might question the claims of this article. 3 years of denial, of refusal to question his authority figure, the newspapers. I recently tested a few people I knew, who said that if it appears in the news it must be true, the subject was different, but then just by asking them, I got them to admit that most of the stuff in the news was bullshit, lots of it lies and at best half truths, and then I tried to ask them again on the original subject, and straight back to contradicting their previous statement about press. It must be true, because everyone says its like this. So, suddenly we see how the people are manipulated by the press, but is this an excuse for a grown man of almost retirement age to publicly accuse his own son of being in a political cult, when the basis of his claim to his understanding of what I do is based on a slanderous and since many times refuted article in the Sunday Times Magazine. 3 years and he did not once try to discuss with me what I am doing, what LaRouche is writing, or in fact try to discuss anything with me. A man clinging to his opinions as they come crashing down around him, clinging to them and alienating his own flesh and blood rather than face the possibility of being wrong. I call it cowardice.
Now for the real question. I'm living under his roof for some days more, not many, but enough that he has the opportunity to try to correct his stupid error. Will I let him? Maybe. What are the conditions that I speak to him again? Simple, he does his own research, concludes that there was no basis for his slanderous claim and apologises to me in front of those same people. Then I might forgive him.
I am part of the LaRouche Youth Movement & the more I see such idiocy in society, the more I realise that Lyndon LaRouche was right. For more info on LaRouche, go to"


Just for fun, when you run into a yute, ask them

"Who's your daddy!"


(Message edited by xlcr4life on September 03, 2007)


Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 9:28 am:

I was truly awestruck reading LaRouche's brilliance at economic forecasting, since he never seems to be able to predict the woes of his own organization (which of course only arise when the members or leaders fail to follow his instructions)! Interesting that he was able to predict the housing crisis of Loudon County in 2000. What year was he forced to abandon Ibykus Farms? Maybe he should figure the simple economic principal that when you don't pay your bills you go bankrupt.


Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 10:12 am:


Ibykus was sold--or rather, a note was put on it, which (surprise!) was unable to be paid off--in the early 1990s, while LaRouche was still in prison. He got out in January 1994, as we all remember, so Ibykus was sold (or lost) before that....

Another blow he's never recovered from. But of course, it's lonely at the top.


Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 5:18 pm:

Do you remember the match of lunacies on Youtube between lyn and helga? (my post 24 aug.) Well larouches' revenge didnt last long: 12 days later both of these videos are withdrawn by youtube for copyright reasons...
Yet, if you do a "homer simpson" search on youtube, you still find some 2,000 other videos or a "Kalkofes Mattscheibe" search (= the author of the other video, in german) you have ... 555 other videos still online!
Strange these two were singled out. Am I getting paranoid?
Last time I quoted something from the website, they terminated it immediately!
Not much sense of humor, uh?
Too funny!


Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 7:52 pm:

Today, while trolling the web, I found this lovely piece by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). On page 7 it refers to a finding in 2006 by the U.S. Court of Appeals in a court case involving Lyndon Larouche's Committee for a New Bretton Woods and the 2000 Presidential campaign. According to the report:

The LaRouche committee received $1,448,389 in federal matching funds. The majority of these funds were paid to seven vendors that provided fundraising and advertising services for the past three nominations that LaRouche had sought; LaRouche was the vendors' sole client. The committee received $222,034 in public funds in connection with "mark-up charges" paid to these vendors.

The FEC told the Committee it had to pay back the money. Wonder if they did given who the vendors are:

The seven vendors were American System Publications, Inc., Eastern States Distributors, Inc., EIR News Services, Inc., Hamilton Systems Distributors, Inc., Mid-West Circulation Corp., Southeast Literature Sales, Inc., and Southwest Literature Distributors, Inc.

BTW, that last piece comes straight off the court opinion - You can read it here.

(Message edited by kheris on September 05, 2007)


Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 10:36 pm:


I think you are just pulling my chain, but I'll respond because I enjoy the subject sometimes. I didn't read the paper, but it's obvious that LaRouche is just restating his belief that some economic processes cannot be adequately described as linear. Whereas Cartesian space is hypothesized as three dimensions that are infinitely extendable, within which physical events are presumed to be the result of linear interactions, LaRouche's notion of space-time refers to a bounded space within which events like economic collapses can be described as physical changes comparable to breaking the sound barrier, for example. LaRouche is just saying that he thinks there is an economic collapse coming that will be dramatic, or, what one might call "non-linear." I think you already know all of that. Maybe you can go more in depth. I would be pleasantly surprised if you could go more in depth without the typical dose of cynicism that betrays the rampant victimization displayed all too often on this message board. It's all pretty pathetic, you know. If someone cast a boatload of pearls before ye, you would spend thy days with all manner of complaints about the boat.


Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 12:41 am:

FYI--those vendors that Kheris mentions are, of course, the ridiculous fronts set up to give the LaRouche org regions some soupcon of corporate veil.

Veil pulled off, it just translates into New Jersey, Philly, Balto-DC, Houston, Chicago, and LA--and I guess the National Office--the regions of LaRoucheland, getting $$ from LaRouche's presidential bid, which got money from the FEC--Mr and Mrs Taxpayer.

What a joke--LaRouche's presidential campaigns were such a great way to pull in the bucks.

Here's a more interesting financial question--what was Cardinal Park sold for, boys and girls, and where did the money go?

P.S. Dear Brewncue--Dramatic and Non-Linear do not actually mean the same thing.


Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 7:05 am:

For those investigators who need a helping hand to decipher the books.

LA uses a Company called "American System Distributers"

ESDI in Philly may be set up as a non [profit, which makes this more interesting.

Brewncue, by "the rampant victimization " are you refering to the many , many elderly who lost their life savings and others who lost tons of money along with physical and mental abuse?

Lyn has made himself above everyone in the universe and that includes members and most definately include victims who lent us millions.

Please gather a list of people who have had their money paid back in full and I will cheerfully acknowledge this. Babara should have the complete list for you.

I mean, if you raise 7 million a year for 20 years, you should have grossed 140 million dollars. Out of that you could have paid someone. Right?

LC/LYM, please present the list of everyone who was paid back and we will remove them from this rampant victimization display.


Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 8:27 am:

Speaking of rampant victimization, how about the people who lost their lives?

As to the lenders--old ladies, people who wound up living on park benches, people who were mentally disabled--hmmm.

We would certainly print on this thread the list of all who were repaid, as well as the length of time it took for them to be repaid, the circumstances under which the repayment occurred (threats? court cases? police action? family intervention?), the terms of the notes or other loan documents given them (interest rate, duration), whether or not the interest was paid, etc.

Brewncue, did you know that back in the mid-1980s, the LaRouche org in the U.S. was raising about $800,000 a week? And funnily enough, in 1986, when its Leesburg, VA headquarters were raided, the Feds and state cops found piles of unpaid loans--when the org was making almost a million a week.

Pretty amazing....


Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 8:37 am:

I just made the connection, being reminded by xlcr of that mad period in the mid-1980s, between what the organization did, and what so bothers Lyndon today about the financial markets. What's the term he uses now, fairly frequently, Ponzi or something, wasn't it. Yes, I'm sure of it. He calls the present financial structure a Ponzi scheme.

Like when you are taking in new money, that must eventually be repaid, just to pay off old loans. And of course, the income is never in balance, so that week by week, the total debt rises, and often the debt service as well. Of course, that was exactly the situation during the mid 1980s, the heyday of the big bucks, so phenomenally mismanaged that when we were taking in the most, including the most that wasn't loans, we went deeper into debt the fastest. We were running a classic Ponzi scheme, and everybody knew it--when Will W. would give the morning briefing stats on fundraising, we were all keenly aware that we were raising new loans to service existing ones--only, it was only a fraction of the existing ones. Basically, the squeakiest, most insistent, or most threatening loan holders got serviced, while the meek inherited promises to pay whenever.

Which means, that at least in the mid-'80s, a few people did, actually get paid, but only a pretty small minority.


Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 9:18 am:

Actually, I think the best way to describe the LaRouche pyramid scheme is to relate it to the great Mel Brooks show The Producers. You bring the money in by wining and dining old ladies, and then when they or their families insist on getting the money back you create a self-perpetuating "flop." In LYM case it would be the continual harassment and financial warfare operations of a. Henry Kissinger, b. Felix Rohaytan, c. Zbigniew Brzezinski; or d. all of the above.


Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 12:59 pm:


My apologies, truly, for the previous bouts of sarcasm and dis-earnesty (sic). They were not directed at you, per-se, but rather at some boomers who might be perusing these boards.

Note that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of LL's organization. And I was never a supporter. Indeed, I am one of the few people ever to have denounced him in public, clearly and vehemently.

A close friend/relative fell into Lyn's rabbit hole, and for decades. So I have studied this matter, in great detail. It is no joke, truly.

You write:

"I didn't read the paper, but it's obvious that LaRouche is just restating his belief that some economic processes cannot be adequately described as linear. Whereas Cartesian space is hypothesized as three dimensions that are infinitely extendable, within which physical events are presumed to be the result of linear interactions, LaRouche's notion of space-time refers to a bounded space within which events like economic collapses can be described as physical changes comparable to breaking the sound barrier, for example. LaRouche is just saying that he thinks there is an economic collapse coming that will be dramatic, or, what one might call 'non-linear.'"

Continued below:


Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 1:02 pm:

My reply:

LaRouche is saying nothing of interest. He uses words, but there are no thoughts behind them.

Of course "some economic processes cannot be adequately described as linear." This is hardly a belief. It is a FACT. So what? This is no great revelation. Everybody knows this.

Note that gravity cannot be adequately described as linear either. Drop a golf ball from your hand. Neglecting the usual minor culprits (air friction, position of the moon, etc) its position from rest (given in feet) as a function of time (t) is "adequately" described by the function y = 16*t^2. Here "*" stands for times (multiplication) and "^" was explained in an earlier post (this is completely standard usage).

The first derivative of this function gives the acceleration. It is y = 32*t. Now THAT is a linear function.

But the gravity function (y=16*t^2) is NOT linear. Big deal. Gravity is non-linear. Little in this world of ours is linear. So what?

Periodic functions (the basis of musical tones) "cannot be adequately described as linear" either. You need sinusoidal functions. Sinusoids are nonlinear.

There are all kinds of interactions in our world. Why is LaRouche "stuck" on the same theme of linearity?

Here are some linear functions:


Here are some quadratic functions:


Here is an exponential function (of great interest to anyone who wants to understand the human ear and tuning)


Here are some sinusoidal functions (of great interest to anyone who wants to know about musical acoustics and tuning):


In a linear process, being linear simply means that the output is proportional to the input. Linear equations are easy to solve. Simultaneous systems of linear equations are more difficult to solve, at least by hand. Some equations and systems of equations cannot be solved directly, or explicitly. Here linear approximations are of GREAT help. This is why linearity is prized. But no serious educated person thinks that the world is linear.

My hypothesis is that LaRouche is either completely confused about the most elementary issues (likely) and/or that he seeks to attract people who are confused about the most elementary matters (extremely likely).

You called my previous screed the "wrath of math." Math is a beautiful subject, by itself. It is useful too, especially when you want to detect and expose bullshit.ers, frauds, and con-artists.

Oh… the Cartesian coordinate system was one of the greatest discoveries ever made. It should be celebrated, every day, because it has led to vast, non-linear increases in our standard of living. Praise the Lord for the Cartesian coordinate system!


Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 1:41 pm:

The so-called LaRouche-Riemann method is a mystique. It s the core of the larouchian irrationality.
For LaRouche: "non-linearity" = "change" (developped in his pseudo-philosophical paper "Project A") = "creativity" = "revolutionary mind" etc.
Indeed every process is potentially "non-linear" but in Larouche' sense; non-linearity has NOTHING to do with maths or physics! That's why he stopped the "LaRouche-Riemann economic model". Not just because it didnt work well but because it was too... scientific. LaRouche's "non-linearity" is a mystical concept. He means that only "revolutinary/creative/golden souls" can understand/see such a... "change" (like the "financial crash", "ww3" etc). As these are "dramatic"/nonlinear events, only a "nonlinear" mind can "see" them (unlike the "experts" or "professionals" who are... "linear"). He is hiding behind the "Cloud of unknowing"... It is pure mystique. He is presenting himself as a "prophet", not a scientist. We are doomed to a new Dark Age because... larouche says so!
He uses Riemann to support his (lar's) notion of "non-linearity" (aka change, creativity, phase-shift etc). He never read Riemann, because you have to understand maths!
It s a mystical concept.
Change, creativity, revolution are empty concepts that were NEVER applied to his own organization. They are not revolutionaries, they are not creative and... they never changed and never will!
His organization is a political machine that's gone loose for decades. It is a completely linear, repetitive entity whose main production is: words, words, words (to quote the Bard)... and money in lar's pocket!


Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 2:14 pm:

Shorter Lyn:

"Do as I say, not as I do."

Shorter Shadok et al., (including Earnest_One):

"Lyn is do-do."

Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 2:41 pm:

Well, here's a summary presentation of state-of-the-art LaRouche balderdash:

One doesn't even know where or how to begin the refutation of the monumental stupidity on display here. On just about each line, a rational person would like to ask "what does this mean?" It's like the avaricious security guard who tacks up on his studio walls glossy photographs of the mansion, yacht, airplane, and women he can never afford because he never had the drive or discipline to work to acquire the things he perceives to be of value. But if he can just have people over so that he may point out "his" mansion and "his" ship and if he can imagine that the visitors share his fantasy with him, then all is right with the world. For glossies, substitute "ideas," and you will have the whole intellectual fraud of Lyndon LaRouche.

LYMers, let's make a deal. Go back to school and get a real education and, in your spare time, read widely, attend concerts and gallery openings, and develop an area of expertise apart from your studies. If you do this for four years and then return to LaRouche's scribblings, you will scratch your head as to why you ever had bought into any of this. Lyn does nothing more than arbitrarily paste things together with the glue of his own untutored and imagined authority.

P.S. He slips in another jibe at MySpace: can someone explain why he appears so freaked out at that particular website? There are many similar; is he just warning his followers against the internet generally? Maybe there are many LaRouche detractors who have accounts on MySpace? Very strange.


Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 5:42 pm:

Kheris, there is a interesting letter where we may see the true value of the yutes. In this letter we have Babara , a THREE DECADE member of Legal and the campaign legal work using the hapless yutes as a reason for their problems.

Maybe there is another reason for this legal problem to happen with the FEC, but I can't think of one. Unless, an experienced genius has a system in place and needed some type of excuse. COnsidering that Lyn has run in 8 or so elections and has had numerous campaign committees, blaming the yutes is like blaming the dogs when one smells one of Helga's legendary Beer Farts.

We have a story but we know where the smell came from.

Her is the beginning and the funny part 6 .

Federal Election Commission
Washington, DC 20463
September 26,2006
Odin Anderson, Esq.
4 Long Fellow Place
Boston, MA 021 14
Re: ADR#311

Lyndon LaRouche PAC and Barbara Boyd, Treasurer

Dear Mr. Anderson:

Enclosed is the signed copy of the agreement resolving the referral initiated on September 26, 2005 with the Federal Election Commission ("FEC/Commission") against Lyndon LaRouche PAC ("Respondents"). The agreement for ADR 31 1 (RR 05L-55) was approved by the Commission on September 14,2006 - the effective date_________

6. Respondents acknowledge an inadvertent violation of FECA, due to their misunderstanding of the requirement of 24-Hour and 48-Hour Notices. Respondents contend that the independent expenditures were disclosed on Schedules E, but at the time the Committee was staffed by inexperienced volunteers who did not realize the significance of the 48-Hour and 24-Hour Notices, nor how to calculate the trigger dates. Respondents assert that they hired experienced staff, and the Treasurer now reviews all financial activity prior to submitting a report to the Commission.


Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 5:45 pm:

Today's adventure returns to Leesburg where we will discover that Lyn has trained the LYM in his economic secrets well. However, no matter what Fearless leader reveals to the LYM about economics and business, the yutes are as clueless as ever about how things work.

Below is an email sent to me. I glanced at it and set it aside for a few weeks until I revisited it and noticed some fascinating finds here.

Read this and see how many of you can pick up the clues here.
















06 50.00 25.00 75.00

The first thing that one notices is that the LYM are now masters of larouche Economics in which you skip payments and let the interest and penalities accrue since saving Humanity from the Dark Ages is more important than paying a bill on time. Considering that the LYM are paid in the same fashion, who expects them to notice this? When I was in the LC I would witness this on a daily occurance. There was this bizarre mentality that that it was noble to skip out on bills.

In the bizarro world of Larouche you would try to run things as best as you could with the resources you had. Vendors were secured and we would have phone lines, telexes, computers and other things rented or leased and in your mind, things seemed like a normal operation. However, every few weeks there was some mobilization to stop Nuclear War, an assasination attempt on Lyn, a new delusion of the month club member introduced by Lyn and we would be off and running. The culmination of this usually ended in some call from the National Office which always had two running themes.


Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 5:46 pm:

The first was that to save humanity this week you had to raise a gazillion dollars. The next item was that the gazillion dolars you raised last week was not enough as some new emergencies came up and absorbed that money. Now, you have to not only raise more money , but, you have to delay, postpone and not pay this weeks bills. I eventually got the impression that to be a true NC in the LC meant that you would send every dime to the National Office without hesitation and jokingly figured that you would starve your members and throw them out intot the street.

We did that and them did some more.

Since you were postponing payment of vendors this triggered all sorts of late fees on credit cards, phone bill turn offs and evictions. When you are in a cult , you claim to undertsand Riemanian manifolds, but cant figure out that a 25 dollar penalty on a 50 dollar license fee is a 50% increase in your costs. Our budgets were useless to look at because a normal phone bill now became stratospheric as we lost local phones and then used private lines . The office phones now required huge deposits to turn on . We were paying rent on an office which had no one in it. Now the private bills came due and to make more money we had people on them longer calling different time zones. This in turn raised the phone costs sky high. It was never thought out since under the Larouche/Schacht economic model of primative accumulation, the quota was hit, but the patient died and victory was declared.

Now here is what very few people had a clue about and even to this day, many never saw or knew about. Many of you have stories about ditching vendors and just shuting down the office and opening up a new one with fresh vendors. While this was going on, we began a secret plan which was based on us setting up a REIT for our supporters to invest in.

Real nice brochures were printed on heavy matte paper and rivaled what you would find in any prospectus. The brochure was in fact a prospectus of sorts and outlined a few land purchases underway in the then sleepy town of Leesburg Virginia. There were sketches of a few office buildings which were located on prime road side property in Leesburg which would be used by the LC while other parcles would be leased by non LC . Our contacts would invest in this project and would recieve their initial money back via the rents generated. Part of the LC lease would have a portion used to buy down the note and over a set amount of years, we would own the property outright.

Another sketch was for an industrial plot in Sterling where the proposed building was described as perfect for the mass of a Web press which PMR had. PMR was to occupy mos tof the space for production and storage whiule other parcels would be leased out to other cimompanies. The same arrangment was in place where by after a certain period of time, the investors would get their money back with interest and we would end up with the property. The proposed plot was described as being near Dulles and with excellent access to highways and part of a growing area which would grow tremendously over the next decade or so.


Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 5:47 pm:

It isn't "monumental stupidity" if it supplies you with a steady cash-stream.

His sheeeeeeet simply smells nice to some folks. Absent coercion, the jokes are on them (L is laughing all the way to the bank).

Besides, it is all computer generated anyway. Nobody takes himself or herself THAT seriously.


Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 5:53 pm:

Wow. we were now encouraging a select number of supporters to invest in a real estate project in a growing area which was undergoing an economic boom!

Now what happened after this is pretty shady and not easy to figure out.

The reason I bring this up is becuase on the License fee for Larouche Youth, LLC is listed Bruce Director and an address of 2 Cardinal Park, #104A in Leesburg, Va.

Hold on here yutes. This rings a bell. I think the company we may have set up for our suppporters to write the checks to was "Cardinal Park Associates" or somethng like that. We may have had a foundation dug at the time before losing it with most members not knowing anything about this .

Take a look at this map and see where this is located

One of the features we printed in the prospectus was that the property we were buying had frontage on State rd 7 which made it very attractive.

This space at 104A was suposedly the space used by the Legal geniuses and CDF, Constitutional Defense Fund. Now how is it that with all of the space available in Leesburg that we end up housing the LYM HQ in a space which may be the plot where we raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in REIT investments for?

If this is THE spot, I wonder what happened to it. We had some law suits for money and damages from losing law suits with NBC for example. Was the proprty "flipped" to someone else? Even if this is not the space, I wonder what happened to the land which was purchases with money outside of the TV money and loan specials? How was it disposed of? Was it transferred to get it out of the hands of creditors? What happened to the PMR outparcel where we glowingly printed that the leases we paid would eventually have us owning property which would be producing income?

Yutes, the more you read this stuff the more you see how clueless you are. Poor Michelle Lerner, is probably the most clueless. She may have not even been born when we ran this investment scheme with our supporters.

Is someone playing a cruel joke here? After all, the whole point of the project ionvestment is that surely by 2007 the LC would have had a pretty sizable real estate portfolio of income producing properties and a virtual payment free office and printing operation.


Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 11:51 am:

I have seen blog anecdotes from encounters with Larouchies. The story goes roughly like this:

Unfortunate enough to have given them their phone number, the college student receives a number of calls from the LYMer. S/he tells the LYMer to bug off, and besides which I don't have any money -- bills to pay and sorting through that mess of student aid, minimum wage or close to it jobs, check from parents to pay the bills. The LYMer responds with -- "None of that will matter because of the Financial and Banking Collapse." The college student responds with suggesting I'll act as though that's not happening, you act as though it is and we'll see what happens. And hangs up.

The other side of that conversation would be...


Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 4:01 pm:

Happened upon this paragraph in Wikipedia's entry on the Big Lie:

"Used in Hitler's psychological profile

"The phrase was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:

"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

Sounds very familiar ...


Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 6:30 pm:

Howie, This exchange is not too off the mark in what historically we did in our fundraising. When we were the US Labor Party we would tell people in rust belt cities that they will be sent to slave labor plants in Colorado to work in shale oil plants under the Humphrey Hawkins bill unless they gave us all of their money.

We had wild rallies where we would be on the bullhorn telling people the best thing to do is to sell your house and give the proceeds to the US Labor Party.

In the FEF days the fear message was that the environmentalists would unleash a new dark ages unless you gave us your money.

In the Jimmy Carter election run up the fear theme was that we would be in thermonuclear war unless we stopped Jimmy Carter.

For mothers we ran into door to door in the suburbs we had druggies ready to take over unless they gave us their money.

Soon our phrase was 'The end of Civilization as we know it" unless Lyn won the New Hampshire Primary. In the Reagan years you needed to give us all of your money to stop the Russian Orthodox Churh and "The Third Rome".

Anyone remember when the Jesuits entered Lyn's delusions and they were now our mortal enemies for demanding a New Dark Ages too?

If you did not give money to stop Mondale, than the Soviets would rule the globe.

If you do not give us all of your money now than Al Gore will kill a few billion people.

This crap never ends, just the revolving door of yutes and people who give us their phojne number or email.

In retrospect, the only people who did lose everything, get destroyed and went through dark ages were our supporters, whim we burnt out over and over.

Gee yutes, you are joining the THREE and FOUR DECADE bums who joined at your age to "build a movement" and you have nothing but a running gag, scam artists who became millionaires from all of the money Lyn sent them and convicted criminal madman to show for it.

This aint no Larouche movement but the "Larouche Family" , and we all know the answer to "who's your daddy?" , don't we.


Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 7:30 pm:

Things are getting a lot clearer since that Larouche Youth LLC doc was sent to me. It all makes sense since legal was based in the office at 2 Cardinal Park # 104. Bruce Director headed up legal and formed the LYM to take the blame for incompetence in the cult. The FEC letter clearly shows that "inexperienced volunteers"

(remember that word "volunteers" yutes when your tax bills come due)

were the cause of the errors.

Now here is a hilarious letter from the Clerk of the Court for everyone to read. Keep in mind that our "paralegals" have spent years and years in devotion of the very earth that Lyn's feet grace. There are at least a half dozen ex members who left this mad house decades ago who became lawyers and have real practises and are real lawyers, not wannabe lawyers.

Read this and see why we usually lost cases.


LYNDON H. LAROUCHE, Jr., Civil Action No. 90-2753 (RCL)



JUL 2 3 2003



This matter comes before the Court on cross-motions by the parties to reconsider this Court's memorandum opinion dated March 31, 2003. Upon consideration of the parties' motions, the opposition and reply briefs filed thereto, and the applicable law in this case, and after reviewing the twenty-seven documents in camera, the Court finds that defendant's motion should be granted in part and denied in part and that plaintiffs motion should be denied.

"District courts have broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration. The court may invoke its discretion and deny such a motion unless it finds an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice." Cobell v. Norton. 213 F.R.D. 33, 34 (D.D.C. 2003). In his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff asks that the Court enter an order amending a memorandum and order entered in this case on June 25, 1993 by Judge Harold Greene. In support of this request, plaintiff neither directs this Court neither to an intervening change in controlling law nor demonstrates a need to correct a clear error or manifest injustice. Instead, plaintiff asserts that


Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 7:35 pm:

Case 1:90-cv-02753-RCL Document 210 Filed 07/23/2003 Page 2 of 3

"the specific relief ordered by Judge Greene is more burdensome to the Government than the circumstances require." Plaintiffs concern about burdening the federal government is touching but unconvincing, in light of the massive burdens inflicted upon the government by his thirteen-year FOIA suit. Additionally, plaintiff informs this Court that "new evidence" mandates reconsideration of Judge Green's decade-old ruling. However, by plaintiffs own admission, he became aware of this "new evidence" in 1994. Nevertheless, plaintiff has enlisted his paralegal, George Canning, to provide this Court with yet another affidavit in this case. In his seventh affidavit, which is dated April 11, 2003, Canning informs this Court that although he "read [the document in question" relatively shortly after the IRS released it [in February of 1994], ... a review which [he] conducted several days ago of [his] various notes and memos, indicates that [he] did not appreciate the significance of the docum ent until re-reading it in the early months of 2001." It is difficult for this Court to understand precisely why Canning's "failure to appreciate the significance of the document" when he read it nine and a half years ago justifies plaintiffs failure to bring the document to the Court's attention at the time that it was discovered, or even two years ago, when the scales purportedly fell from Canning's eyes and he finally "appreciatefd] the significance" of the document. Therefore, plaintiffs motion will be denied.

It is difficult to imagine a better way to waste the limited resources of a court than for a party to ask it to return to issues that the party litigated and lost ten years earlier. The Court was finally able to lay this thirteen-year-old case to rest in March of this year, and absent the most extraordinary of circumstances, has absolutely no intention of resurrecting it. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for reconsideration [195-1] be, and hereby is,


Case 1:90-cv-02753-RCL Document 210 Filed 07/23/2003 Page 3 of 3

DENIED. It is further

ORDERED that defendant's motion to alter or amend this Court's memorandum and order dated March 31, 2003 [196-1] be, and hereby is, DENIED. It is further

ORDERED that defendant's motion to clarify this Court's memorandum and order dated March 31, 2003 [196-2] be, and hereby is, GRANTED. In LaRouche v. IRS, civil action number 91-1655, this Court permitted the Department of the Treasury to withhold the two IRS documents referred to as the Special Agent's Report ("SAR") and the Criminal Reference Letter ("CRL") in their entirety. See Mem. Op. dated Aug. 29, 2000 ("However, a review of the Vaughn Index in LaRouche v. Justice and the instant case indicates that the SAR and CRL are covered in their entirety by Exemption 3 in connection with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure. . . . Accordingly, Treasury may withhold both the SAR and CRL in their entirety."). Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from challenging this determination in the present case. Therefore, the Court finds that the SAR and CRL are exempt in their entirety pursuant to FOIA Exemption 3, and that defendant is not required to produce those documents in this case.



Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 2:07 am:

RE: "Music & Statecraft: HOW SPACE IS ORGANIZED" BY Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Aug. 29, 2007

Thanks, Sancho, for bringing this to our attention (your penultimate posting, #163). What a hoot! There are a number of things one might say about this, and I might get around to saying them at some point, but I just want to point out a few things at this time.

First of all, this relatively largish document, which printed out for me at 26 pages, is all an elaborate new defense of his long-time defense of Kepler's belief that the ratios of the musical scale can be found in the orbital patterns of the planets--one aspect of Kepler's work, along with his explicit astrology, which has rightly not stood the test of time, and is completely without interest for modern science.

This defense was portended by his reference to the same issue in his longest document in a while, the full text of "The State of Our Union: The End of Our Delusion! of Aug. 3, which printed out for me at nearly 60 pages. The reference was truly hilarious--and also explained something I actually wondered about at the time. In section 2.23 (he actually numbered his sections in this one), he discusses what really happened out at Ibycus Farm at a meeting arranged by the FEF (Fusion Energy Foundation, for LYM members, the actually highly successful, for a number of years, scientific journalism endeavor that attracted quite a number of scientists, especially in the areas of fusion power and fission (nuclear) power, which the FEF was a total supporter of) in the mid-1980s. I distinctly recall knowing the meeting took place, with a number of real, flesh-and-blood scientists of some note. I never heard a report of what came out of it, but I certainly hoped it was successful.

Well, now it can be told, evidently, from the horse's mouth (or is it from the opposite orifice?). Lyn's own description cannot be topped (he was, for reasons of his own, in a very rare moment of total honesty when he wrote the following passage): "I pointed to the role of harmonics in Kepler's generalization of the principle of gravitation for the Solar system. Some of the scientists at the table exploded where they sat! Except for a few among us, such as a serene and sovereign Professor Robert Moon, the best of the scientists among us, their rage would not be stilled."

Well, I don't know what is provoking this stroll down Memory Lane, but something is sticking in his craw. Because the "How Space is Organized" gem is, underneath quite a layer of detritus, disinformation and rabbit holes leading nowhere, nothing but a new, highly elaborate, defense of what drove the scientists nuts at Ibycus 20 years ago.

But, best of all, he has elaborated a totally new argument (at least, I have never seen it before) to justify it. (See next post)


Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 2:38 am:

Again, no paraphrase can substitute for his own words. In his third paragraph, he repeats his shop-worn call to reject "the usually supposed real existence of a simply visible space-time" the way he says Kepler did (sic). More on that another time. It is backdrop to othe following inimitable assertions:

"That rejection, as I state it simply, as illustration, in these prefatory remarks, must always be raised as an emphatic denial of the separate functional existence of either a simply visible, or simply auditory space-time. That denial must be enforced in favor of a realization, that, essentially, it is precisely the apparently absolute contradiction between the two contrasted, naive notions of sense-certainty, sight and hearing, which is the required foundation, as in the notion of a "wavicle," for a competent practice of physical science in general, but emphatically so for any competent study of Kepler's work.

The contradiction between those two senses (as, with the other senses), which, when they are combined in the method of experimental science, as a manifold, provides a single conception located within a higher quality of state of mind than is known among even many professionals today. This is a state of mind, above the superficiality of sense-perceptions as such, a higher, visual-auditory standpoint, which then becomes both the principal, and the principled component of that single experience of reality. This approximation, the visual-auditory manifold, then, serves, exactly as Kepler did in The Harmony of the World, as the replacement for a naive reading of sense-experience.

This manifold, when employed in a task-oriented search for a principle enclosing the universe, then serves as a single, uniquely human conception of a type otherwise known only to the person of the Creator: that must be understood to signify the will to discover the means to change the behavior of the given form of the universe, either in part, or, potentially, on a broader scale. The method required by this higher, creative (i.e., anti-entropic) form of a single conception, must, therefore, replace the philosophical reductionist's naive devotion to mere perception of a statistical repeatability located within the fixed confines of what is, actually, an ontologically non-existent presumption of sense-certainty."

Sancho, you are definitely excused for not "getting" exactly what this great mind at work is driving at here (actually, not driving "at" but "over" as a cliff), so a little exegisis is in order. Talk about flight forward! Talk about cutting off your hand to treat a scratch on your finger! To cover for his moronic championing of Kepler's useless and meaningless "discovery" that ratios involving the angular velocities of the inner 6 planets at aphelion and perihelion appeared to match the intervals of the musical scale, Lyn has elevated this position to become the center of his entire pseudo-theory of the self-subsisting universe (as elaborated in this document). And in so doing has exposed himself, in a more clearly obvious fashion than I can remember, to the appropriate ridicule that his actual "theory" (for lack of suitably pejorative term for what it actually is) so richly deserves. LYM members, here, exposed by his own hand, is the "genius" you believe is showing you the way to understand science, math, and the grandest principles of human thought.

So, let me explain (see next post).


Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 3:31 am:

You see, the musical scale is an auditory issue, since we hear the tones with our auditory faculty. The orbits of the planets are a visual phenomenon, derived by visual observation aided by instruments. All modern scientists see no conceivable connection between these two domains. Why on earth (or anywhere else in the universe) should the tones of the musical scale, which in any case are not "natural," certainly not the "well-tempered" scale which is subjectively bent to create distinctly different tonal relationships in different scales, have any connection with a particular feature caused by the elliptical nature of planetary orbits that is merely a computed value of little importance for any other aspect of planetary motion. But Lyn's been convinced that these two domains, music and astronomy, are linked just as Kepler believed, since 1982, and he's not the least bit interested in revisiting his commitment to this particular bit of scientific nonsense.

So, he dives right in. To wit, he invents a "manifold" where the admittedly disparate senses of hearing and sight actually come together in a higher synthesis. His proof: we must, he says, "emphatically deny the separate functional existence of either a simply visible or simply auditory space-time." OK, I'm listening. Why, dear sir, must we deny the separate functional existence of these two domains, which you admit are "apparently" in "absolute contradition" to one another?

Well, the next sentence plunges ahead into even less-well charted waters, by saying that "that denial" must lead to the "realization that it is precisely the apparently absolute contradiction between the two...notions of sense-certainty, sight and hearing, which is the required foundation...for a competent practice of physical science in general..."

Whoa! The head definitely does begin to spin, pretty much in proportion as the brain begins to despair of getting any rationale at all for this odd turn of the argument. Let's recap. So far, we must reject the separation of sight and hearing in favor of the realization that the "absolute contradiction" between them is the foundation for all physical science. Where is Alice in Wonderland's Red Queen now that we need her, to unravel the hidden logic here?

Folks, this is already so moronic, words fail me in trying to render the gulf between the profoundest truth that Lyn claimns to be saying, and the utter lunacy of what he is actually saying. As I've said before, you simply can't make this stuff up. But, he isn't finished. "The contradiction between these two senses...when they are combined in the method of experimental science, as a manifold, provides a single conception located within a higher quality of mind...above the superficiality of sense-perception as such, a higher, visual-auditory standpoint...the principle...component of that single experience of reality." (see next post)


Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 3:36 am:

And Lyn has the audacity to rail against Euclid and Descartes for allegedly being empiricists and reductionists! Even if every charge he levies against them were true (which, of course, they are not), how much higher a form of mental activity is whatever Lyn accuses them of, then what Lyn does here, which is argument by tautology. Assume what you are arguing for, and then use that assumption as the proof that your claim is true. Magnificent. He uses the phrase "when they (the two senses) are combined... as a manifold." But who says they CAN be combined? And what does it mean to say they are combined? And what does it mean to "be combined as a manifold?" He simply asserts that despite their "absolute contradictory" appearances, they are, in fact, combined in a higher manifold. Not a shred of a hint of an actual argument for why such a combination is possible, and if it were, what it would mean? It's off into his own world, his black hole from which logic never again emerges.

This is truly stunning. As I said at the beginning, I can't remember anything else by him where the mumbo-jumbo about Kepler and science in general are so obvious, so easily shown to be absurd, displayed in such a compact format where in just 3 paragraphs, his entire "method" crumbles to dust, and his true, teleogical, tautological, assumption-based (that is, he assumes his conclusions, and then uses these assumptions to "prove" his conclusions) "method" so readily exposed.

Enjoy, LYMers. Your emperor is stark, raving naked.


Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 9:58 am:


Your critique is interesting, but I think you are standing near the edge of the chasm you accuse LaRouche of having fallen off. Why is it so strange to hypothesize that the same law that governs the auditory realm, which is nonetheless sovereign, also governs the visual realm? Even if "all modern scientists see no conceivable connection between these two domains," (which I really doubt), it is still an appealing hypothesis.


Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 10:38 am:

It is fascinating that LaRouche yin-yangs between utter repudiation of the senses and their product, and utter embrace of the same. Whenever the analyst says, "ah, LaRouche is an idealist" (in the technical meaning of the term), he plunges into the great froth of the sensorum (sensorium) and equates human sensing with God's spacetime sensorum--a very different proposition.

When the analyst says, "ah, LaRouche is an empiricist," for whom the sensing capacity and its products in sense and sensation underlie all knowledge, he roundly rejects the "empiricism" of, as larouchetruth says, a Euclid or a Descartes, in favor of the idealism of a ... LaRouche.

But most of LaRouche's attacks on Euclid are based on the fact that Euclidean space is not actually what we have in this universe--that is, a critique from the most empiricist stance possible.

Not to mention Descartes. You would think LaRouche would have done the interesting thought experiment of comparing Descartes and Leibniz in the lab, and would have discovered that Descartes has zero interest in the evidential and the experimental--wouldn't you? No, I guess not...

Now LaRouche seems to have dived into the world of synesthesia, the confusion or conflation of the senses preached by Baudelaire, Rimbaud, and Richard Wagner. It was a great esthetic discovery of theirs, very much a part of the fin-de-siecle corruption of culture and worldview in the second half of the 19th century. It's what Wagner was striving for at Bayreuth with the "total experience" of his dreary operas.

So now LaRouche has fallen into that maelstrom too, eh? There's a difference, dear Brewncue, between hypothesizing connections among our senses--in fact, since they work so well together, all serious scientists know perfectly well there must be connections among those domains to make them coherent--and combining our senses.

The first proposition is accepted by scientists; for the second, you have to go to Arthur Rimbaud, Timothy "I see God" Leary--or Lyndon "I am God" LaRouche.


Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 11:35 am:


That's an even more interesting critique of the critique. I had to read it several times to understand it as well as I am able. In the end I think it should be clear to anyone, even those who might be versed in the synesthesia of Baudelaire, that what you have written is (to use the words of larouchetruth) "underneath quite a layer of detritus, disinformation and rabbit holes leading nowhere."


Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 2:13 pm:

Brewncue, the world is full of "interesting hypotheses," only a small minority of which prove accurate and worthy of becoming theories (meaning, they have enough empirical support that they really seem likely to be true, at least relative to whatever theories may have preceded them). There is nothing wrong in hypothesizing; in fact, it is the essential first step in any scientific breakthrough. That which no one hypothesizes is not going to be thought of.

The issue here, however, is, OK, you've got your hypothesis, how do you proceed to validate it, to demonstrate that it has a claim to be valid. Typically, a hypothesis generates predictions of behavior that can be tested. In some cases, if there are existing empirical pieces of evidence that can't be accommodated by the existing theory, if a hypothesis is proposed that still accounts for everything that the old theory still does work for, and in addition accounts for the anomalous pieces of evidence, that ability to explain more than the pre-existing theory is a strong argument in favor of the hypothesis. This is generally called the "scientific method," and is taught, typically, starting in about the sixth grade, and repeated thereafter as a student proceeds through high school, college and post-grad. It is pretty rockhard as an approach, since if one doesn't follow it, how is one to ever determine that one interesting possibility is actually in accord with physical reality, and another not?

Now, in the case of Special Relativity of Einstein, his theory accounted perfectly for all the known facts, only, it involved overturning the most seemingly rockhard aspect of "sense certainty," namely, that time was a constant. It was hardly an instant smash success. The empirical proof that clocks speed up at higher velocities had to wait 60 years, until it was confirmed that clocks on orbiting satellites sure enough, ran just as much faster than clocks on earth as Einstein's theory predicted they should.

In fact, the first proof of any kind that any part of Einstein's theory was true in a domain where it would predict something different than the old theory would predict, was in 1920, 15 years after he first published it, because one of the corollaries of the theory was that gravity would bend light, something that would not happen in a Newtonian universe. In 1920, there was an instance of an eclipse in deep space, where one star was scheduled to eclipse another, and where the farther star would appear to emerge from eclipse sooner if its light were bent by gravity, than if it were not. This was a very major moment in the history of astro-physics, with precise measurements being made, telescopes all over the world there to capture the event, and sure enough, the farther star became visible from behind the eclipsing star just when Einstein's theory said it should.

In the present case, what do we have here? Well, we have LaRouche's belief, and we have your statement, which does not necessarily accord exactly with LaRouche's. Let's start with yours. You ask why it should be strange that the "same law" that governs the "auditory realm" also governs the "visual realm." It is important to think about what one says, and I'm not convinced you have done so in this instance. When dealing with the precise determinations of the tones of the 12-tone musical scale, we are dealing with an area where it is hard to claim that a "law" of any type is at work. What "law' are you referring to. I urge you to attempt to create a sentence that states the "law" that you think you are thinking of. I think you will not be able to come up with anything. But please try. It may teach you something.


Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 2:17 pm:

"The contradiction between those two senses (as, with the other senses), which, when they are combined in the method of experimental science, as a manifold..."--emphasis added--

If our eyes tell us that the car is rushing towards us, but our ears tell us it is rushing away from us, that is a contradiction--with the obvious unfortunate consequences.

Since that does not happen in our orderly world, what on earth do you suppose he means by contradiction? What contradicts what, eye to ear?

Maybe he just means they're different. But in that case, unsurprisingly, what he's saying is worse than trivial and tautological.

But wait! The contradictory senses are "combined ... as a manifold."

Actually, the evidence of our eyes and the evidence of our ears are combined in our perceiving faculty, and everyone has always known it--it is this that enables us to survive--and enables cats and dogs and rabbits in their rabbit holes to survive too.

So what is this other, mysterious combination (in experimental science, as opposed to experience) that is on a plane that only LaRouche can properly understand?

And combined as a manifold, yet. What do you suppose he means by manifold? Not the mathematical definition, that's for sure.

Seems as if a higher-order principle or two has gone MIA.


Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 2:21 pm:

I refer to my previous extended discussion of the difference between the Pythagorean intervals (fifths perfectly consonant, fourths and thirds less so, and eventually, octaves out of consonance), well-tempering, and equal tempering (there are other types as well). All of them face a conundrum. On the one hand, the mind needs scale steps (half-tones) that are either exactly equal to each other, or close enough that a scale doesn't sound unbalanced, with larger relative leaps in tone juxtaposed to smaller relative leaps. That's kind of basic. At the same time, the fifth, fourth and third, and of course the octave, need to be consonant. Now, there are laws of acoustics, and the laws of acoustics, which in this instance has a lot to do with the overtone series, involves waves that overlap, at least in part, creating the perception of consonance. It turns out that the maximum consonance is NOT consistent with creating an equal-tempered musical scale.

The well-tempered scale was one particular compromise, that was willing to accept small but perceptible divergences in some notes from an equal-tempered system, while keeping the overall system in balance, to avoid the Pythagorean problem of ever growing divergences of the octave. This meant that scales in different well-tempered keys sounded different, often evoking different emotions, and were thus used by composers to deliberately evoke whatever a given scale evoked.

Since octaves are an exponential function, defined as having a frequency double that of an octave below, and half that of an octave above, each scale step in an equal tempered system is the twelth root of 2 higher than the scale step below it, and the same amount lower than the scale step above it.

So, what, exactly, is the "law," Brewncue, that you believe is operable here, in relation to the musical tones? The scale is tuned based on an empirical process that involves compromises between competing, inconsistent, demands to create a scale that is both consonant and has 12 at least relatively equal scale steps.

And more to the point, which tempering do you, or LaRouche, choose to use to compare with the planetary orbits? Pythagoras'? Well-termpering? Equal tempering? Even-tempering? It matters, since to the extent that one might appear to "fit," all of the others necessarily wouldn't fit as well, since they're different. The point is, there is no hypothesis here at all. The relative scale steps are what they are depending on the tuning protocol chosen by a given instrumentalist or orchestral group. And there certainly is no theory.

But you go much, much farther than that, and refer to a "law that governs the auditory realm." The only thing at issue is the relative frequencies of the musical tones in the scale. That's all that even Lyn is talking about here. The "auditory realm" encompasses everything known about acoustics, about how the ear works, a huge discipline. Surely, there is not even just one single "law" that in some sense "governs" this realm. I think you just put down a sloppy formulation, without thinking about it. No one's talking, not even LaRouche, about the entire "auditory realm."


Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 2:37 pm:

You make the same sweeping formulation about a "law" that governs the "visual realm." Again, we, and even LaRouche, are talking about no such thing. The "visual realm" is so phenomenally greater than what is at issue here, involving not only everything known about the laws of optics, but in this context subsuming a major portion of astronomy and much besides. What is at issue here is only one among many, many possible measurements that could be made of planetary orbits. Kepler calculated the angular velocity of each of the 6 planets then known during a 24-hour period when they were closest to the sun (perihelion) and when they were farthest away (aphelion). Angular velocity is how much arc they traverse in relationship to the sun in a 24-hour period. Since the perihelion is closer, and is where the actual speed is also greater, a significantly greater arc is cut out in perihelions than aphelions.

He then compared these angular velocities for the same planet. The aphelion to the perihelion for the earth turns out to be close to the Pythagorean ratio (do you own internet research for this) for a semi-tone (half scale step, like from E to F. For Saturn, the ratio is 6/5, which is the Pythagorean string ratio for the minor third, I believe. And so on.

Then, he compared ratios of all aphelions and all perihelions of all the planets to each other, and found very close approximations to all the ratios necessary to generate a complete musical scale.

Some websites say that these measurements hold up today. So we appear to have the fact that if these various angular velocity measurements (including the new planets discovered since Kepler) are compared to each other, all sorts of intervals appear with a fairly close approximation to Pythagoras's string ratios. Mind you, not exact, but close. And Pythagorean, not well-tempered or equal tempered.

The next question is, OK, does this have any significance for science. Interestingly, it is the case that Kepler derived his Third Law in the course of working out his Harmonics of the Spheres, and he clearly gave more importance to that than to the law itself, which is buried in a list of other laws of much lesser interest to later science, its great importance seemingly underappreciated by Kepler himself.

Well, the burden of proof is on those who say there is a significance. One can measure other aspects of the aphelions and perihelions, such as their actual distances from the sun, or their actual speeds, and these measurements do NOT yield very close harmonic ratios—actually, Kepler tried those two first, and only when he came to the angular velocities did he find a match to Pythagoras's string ratios. One might look at their average orbital speeds, angular velocities, or mean distances from the Sun, and nothing fits. So, why is the particular measurement, of angular velocities, of interest except as a curious coincidence?


Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 2:47 pm:

I have no idea. Nothing anyone has said, not Lyn, not anyone else who champions the importance of this correspondence today (it does, by the way, have its champions, just not among scientists—I am unaware of any scientist who finds this correspondence interesting), takes this supposed important fact, and derives anything else from it in any way at all. At best, it is just curiosity of the universe. It yields no hypotheses. The ratios of angular velocities have nothing to do with waves, whereas Pythagoras' string ratios are ratios of lengths of vibrating strings making audible tones. They are just numbers, statistics, that require measurement to be calculated. They correspond to no "principle of the universe," as Lyn is constantly talking about it. No predictions can be made based on this correspondence. They don't even really have to do with the "visual realm," except in that they are derived by empirically determining the exact elliptical orbits, involving certain measurements of position and its changes over time, applying mathematics to calculate orbits, and other measurements to calculate distance from the sun, and more mathematics to determine angular velocities as they would be seen (but not, of course, by us) from the Sun.

So, again, Brewncue, you speak of a "law" common to these two areas, and I don't see any law at all, I see a correspondence between the string ratios of pure consonances (non-well-tempered, that ultimately break down if used to construct scales in which you can modulate between different keys) and a highly derived, calculated measurement of a particular scientifically uninteresting aspect of planetary orbits. One involves the frequencies of sound and derives its reality from the overtone series, based on the fact that doubling a frequency creates a perfect consonance, etc. (I am not going to go into why they sound consonant, do that on your own), the other has nothing to do with waves of any kind, or sounds of any kind. Auditory harmony is caused the partial overlap of the wave frequencies of the overtones. That's why the ear hears then as harmonies. What possible significance could attach to calling these highly derived calculations of ratios of angular velocities whose randomly compared values happen to closely (but not exactly) equal the Pythagorean ratios "harmonic?" What is in "harmony" with what? So Saturn's angular velocity at perihelion is 20% greater than its velocity at aphelion, yielding a 6/5 ratio, the same as a Pythagorean third? Just because the third is harmonic to the ear, based on acoustical laws, doesn't make this same ratio, involving non-acoustical astronomical measurements, harmonic.

I call this extreme nominalism. Also numerology. Believe me, over the ages, very intelligent people have "discovered" gizillions of "correspondences" among different things in the universe, in different domains. Kepler was in that tradition. He followed a long line, including Pythagoras and many other great minds before him, who believed that the harmony of the musical scale should also be found in the Solar System. Kepler was the greatest exponent of this effort, and the most successful. It's just that science has moved on, and ultimately determined that insofar as this correspondence of ratios appears to exist, it is simply not productive of anything of interest to science. It reflects no laws. It basically means nothing.

The burden of proof is on anyone who says it means something to show what it means. Lyn hasn't ever attempted to show that it means anything. And he sent most scientists who had shown in interest in his publication Fusion Magazine screaming from the room, never to return, over this issue.

Brewncue, ball's in your court.


Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 3:30 pm:

LTruth, one thing to think about is what was happeing ti the FEF in the early 1980s. Lyn wished to remake the FEF into another worshiping society for himself which caused some problems. The money which went into this tax exempt set up was also something of lust.

Kepler was given basic lip service in the LC until the FEF published an article by Bob Zubrin as a cover story. If I rememeber enough of this, Zubrin spent most of his time reading and writing about Kepler.

As the bulk of FEF people left the both the FEF and LC, the only thing left was to to make money off of it, do PR for Nazi rocket scientists and make money off of our "Global Showdown" and "Third Rome" with conservative fundrasing lists.

Zubrin left the Biazarro World in NYC and returned to school to earn his PHD and several patents in rocket science. If you google Zubrin and Kepler you will see the extent in which Zubrin is involved with present day space expolaration theory , work and lobbying.

Keep that in mind yutes when you return once again to card table shrines and carcinogen inhalation play areas. A yute who left college to join this lunacy in 2001 could by now be sumbitting a resume to actually work on Project Kepler or be right in the middle of this and other research.

Instead, you can enjoy reading more stories I have about how clueless you are and read a lot of great writing here from former members.

You see yutes, you can babble about finance, real estate, investments, teaching, industry, design and other endeavors. The LYM is sort of like a cross between Romper Room and Barney where everything is pretend play within a small world filled with endless boogie men.

Just read that letter I posted which mentions George Canning playing paralegal in the real world. He has had over THREE DECADES to get serious and has witnessed every thing we write about here and then some.

Ask him about Club Ibykus and what it is today. If he can't, don't worry. We have a lot of good info complete with maps, pictures and Satelite photos. Then you will know why Lyn really is •••••• about real estate in Northern Virgina.


Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 4:48 pm:


If I might attempt to summarize your argument as a simple syllogism: Kepler is not credible. LaRouche favors Kepler. Therefore, LaRouche is not credible.

Let us look at the major premise. On the one hand you say "Kepler's Third Law was buried in a list of other laws of much lesser interest to later science," but then you attempt to destroy the credibility of Kepler's work, based upon the apparent inaccuracies of his harmonies. I would point out that Kepler had earlier hypotheses with respect to the planetary orbits that were even more inaccurate. In defense of Kepler, I would say a hypothesis is not necessarily wrong simply because a later hypothesis proves to be more accurate. It just means that there was room for improvement. Kepler kept at it. Eventually, he was able to hypothesize the orbits as ellipses, and develop his celebrated Laws. The Third law, to which you refer, was obviously of profound importance in later scientific developments, not the least of which was Gauss's work determining the orbit of Ceres. So, is Kepler credible? I think so. Unless you can presume to understand and describe, then practice your own method of creative discovery, and then show the world its fruit, I would say you are quite foolish to critisize Kepler as such.


Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 5:45 pm:

Thank you, larouchetruth, for doing the spadework. It is necessary for the LYMers to see precisely demonstrated the falsity of their god's "ideas." I used to attempt similarly detailed refutations here but simply found myself going mad having to rationally pick apart LaRouche's incoherent ravings. In addition, "ideas" are of zero importance to LaRouche; what is important to him is the perception by others that he knows what he is talking about and that he is moreover some sort of "genius." The entire LaRouche organization is a criminal cult of personality, nothing more and nothing less. The "ideas" are just window dressing for luring befuddled youths when not simply LaRouche's grandiosity writ infinitesimal.

What prompted my earlier posting was precisely the manifold nonsense (pun intended). It's funny that you zeroed in on that too. Recall that his former numerological hobby horse was the Golden Mean: the fact that it could be found in many places both natural and artificial was supposed to mean Something, but it was never clear What.

By the way, whatever happened to Cantor? I guess he was bumped by Einstein as LaRouche can only permit one Jew in the scientific-mathematical pantheon at a time. The name of Georg Cantor, LYMers, was once breathed with the same veneration as that of Riemann. Ask Fearless Leader about that one. Maybe Der Helga fears that the more Jews are held up for adulation, the more power Steinberg wields.

To repeat: the sole purpose of the entire LaRouche organization from at least 1972 on - the SOLE PURPOSE - is the aggrandizement of LaRouche's ego. Period.


Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 5:53 pm:

After it was reported on FACTnet last spring that the term "locust" as applied to hedge funds was a classically antisemitic slur, the LaRouchites stopped using it entirely. Well, it just started to creep back in, with the accent on creep:

Shame on you, Lyndy!


Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 2:13 am:

Brewncue, you're putting on quite an act, but you give yourself away by your writing. You've clearly received a decent education, and are clearly literate to a level above, well above, I'd guess, the average for adults in our society today. So, I refuse to believe that someone who can clearly read pretty well, could so obtusely, stupidly, inanely, completely not understand what I wrote earlier today. There's just no way. So, what's your game?

Hmm, unless…unless. You know what? Nothing else can explain it that I can come up with. You must be deliberately responding this way to help the LYM members reading this hold up a mirror to themselves and realize how stupid they are to fall for Lyn's sophistic nonsense. Sort of the way Shakespeare helps people understand themselves by seeing themselves, and their foibles, their faulty thinking, their pettiness, their mistakes, portrayed on stage with them as the spectators, looking as if in a mirror at themselves. You are clearly parodying how a LYM member might desperately attempt to cling to his faith that LaRouche is making sense in the face of how I utterly demolished the ability of any even semi-rational person to believe so, and by so doing helping them to realize the futility of such an effort by the absurdity of your feigned response.

So, I add the following nor for your benefit, because you are either actually as stupid as your response would suggest, in which case you must clearly have someone ghost-writing your responses for you since no one that stupid could write as well as you do (in terms of grammar, spelling, you know, that kind of thing), and in which case any reply would truly be futile, or you are, as I suggest, putting on the LYM members reading this and helping to free them from the chains of LaRouche's delusions and preposterous thinking.

I shall briefly respond to your response to me solely in hopes that perhaps for some, the door might have opened a crack, and by my response that crack might become larger, even large enough for them to slip out of the insane asylum.

Your "summary" of my argument is too stupid for words. Who said Kepler is "not credible?" Kepler was the greatest scientific mind of his generation, deducing the elliptical nature of the planetary orbits, and the other aspects of his three laws of planetary motion—and lots else besides. No one can take that away from him. I said nothing to suggest I have ever thought, nor do I now think, otherwise. I didn't even dispute that he appears to have found a correspondence between the Pythagorean string ratios and the angular velocities of the planetary aphelions and perihelions.

What I DID say was that I find that correspondence of no scientific interest, in which I am in excellent company of other scientists. I challenge LaRouche, any member of the LYM, or even you, Brewncue, to show me what it even means to say that these planetary measures represent "harmonies" analogous to how the ear hears harmonies from our musical intervals. They share a numerical ratio (and only by comparing aphelion and perihelion values from different planets to each other in a random pattern, where it is hard to discern any possible significance to comparing, say, the angular velocity of earth's perihelion with that of Saturn's aphelion (this example is purely hypothetical), and to say that that ratio is 4/3, the Pythagorian ratio for, I believe it is the fourth?), that's all. They don't share the harmony that that ratio signifies for musical pitches, where the ratios are instructions on relative string lengths to generate sound waves in certain proportions.


Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 2:24 am:

And to show me why this purely empirical, statistical correlation is of any interest to science. LaRouche has never even tried to do this. The supposed congruence between the domain of music and astronomy is supposed to be intrinsically meaningful, even if no law, no hypotheses, no understanding of either music or planetary orbits, follows from it. And he makes no claim that anything follows from it.

To take the second sentence of your second paragraph. I make no attempt to "destroy the credibility of Kepler's work," only to suggest that the portion of his work on this specific item of finding "harmonies" in the orbital velocities that match Pythagorean string ratios is not interesting today. I mentioned what I said about his third law simply as a fact, which demonstrates how important his harmony theories were to Kepler, not to judge him, just to describe the interesting fact that he actually did discover a very important law relating to gravity and orbits even while pursuing something that to him was more important, but which has not stood the test of time.

When you refer to earlier theories that were "even more inaccurate," I have to wonder whether you actually can read. I conceded that the orbital values might have been quite close (though not exact), and was not holding them up as "inaccurate." You are referring to Kepler's earlier attempt to see if the 5 Platonic solids could explain the mean orbital distances of the 6 planets from the Sun. Kepler didn't think they were "more inaccurate." He, unlike you, was a scientist. He abandoned them because they were clearly false—the empirical measurements didn't fit what the theory called for. For Kepler, even "less inaccurate" wouldn't have sufficed. It had to be accurate, or it wasn't science, and wasn't correct. After the solids, he tried, as I mentioned, perihelion and aphelion distances from the Sun, I and actual orbital speeds at aphelion and perihelion. None of them matched the ratios closely enough. But the match was so close for the angular velocities that Kepler believed it couldn't be an accident, and must confirm a view held for the previous 2 millenia, that music and the planets had a relationship. Kepler was part of a very long tradition of thought. It made absolute sense, in his day and age, to hold the hypothesis he did.

My point is that, 380 years later, science has moved on, and shown this particular now 2500-year-old conjecture to hold no scientific interest. So why do you obtusely completely ignore what I wrote, and replace it with the lies and gibberish in your response? It's that way with science. Kepler also didn't know about relativity. He thought space was Cartesian, with three spatial dimensions. Einstein for several decades refused to accept the validity of the equations governing quantum mechanics, despite the empirical proofs that they were true, because he thought the very small had to be just like the reality that we experience. It happens all the time. Scientists are creatures of their day and age, and even the greatest make some hypotheses that don't prove correct. So what? The burden of history is to separate the wheat from the chaff so science can march on.

And the rest of what you wrote, is the same lie about what I said. The question isn't "Is Kepler credible?" of course he is, on many things. The very question is preposterous. Credibility isn't some all or nothing characteristic, like being under 50 years old, or over, you are either one or the other, but not both at the same time.

You are a true disciple of LaRouche, and definitely deserve him. You totally ignore every single thing I wrote, then set up a straw man based on lies about what I said, and then attacked the straw man. Perfect. If it works for you, stay the course, man. But for those of us not imprisoned in our private insane asylums (or LaRouche's public one), it doesn't work. Not even close.


Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 4:44 am:

To return to the How Space Is Orgnized hoot of a document, when I posted what I posted last night I was just getting limbered up. A few observations remain to be said about the three paragraphs I quoted verbatim (please refer back for reference) before moving on, over the next several days, to some of the further hilarity enclosed within.

The first paragraph quoted approaches gibberish. The very phrase "simply visible space-time" is an absurdity. What, pray tell, could dear old Lyndy possibly mean by "space-time" in this context? That notion entered the vernacular with Einstein. Before 1905, everyone believed that space had three spatial dimensions. Time, while it might have been called a fourth dimension, was universally considered to be totally independent of the 3 spatial dimensions. Only with Special Relativity does the notion of a "space-time continuum" come into existence. Any use of that term in reference to any date prior to 1905 is either a) an unintentional anachronism (the inappropriate projection backward in time of a concept only developed later—like referring to music of the 1930s as "rock and roll") which would mean that Lyn simply doesn't know any better, or b) a deliberate lie and obfuscation intended to make him appear to be highly knowledgeable about astrophysics when he in fact knows almost nothing about it. I tend to the former hypothesis myself, as it is consistent with Lyn's proven capacities for pathological lying.

So, a "simply visible space-time" means absolutely nothing here. What Lyn is presumably flounderingly trying to express here is that the laws of gravitation require discovery of principles that can't be known just by looking at the planets, or even plotting their motions, as Tycho Brahe did, but by creatively intuiting from all known observations and facts what we after the fact term scientific laws, such as the laws of gravitation. In other words, simple use of the senses, unaided by the creative mental process of creating hypotheses, testing them against empirical evidence, perfecting the hypotheses, until we have a basis to consider them proven, is not sufficient to develop scientific laws. LaRouche on this point is absolutely, without doubt, A1 on the money and, well, duh, absolutely trivial and obvious. The only intelligible point that might be teased from this paragraph is a truism. If scientific laws—of which there are hundreds if not thousands in dozens of distinct domains of science—were self-evident by simple "sense certainty" types of observations, surely all of known physics today would have been known by Plato's time. But of course, every advance in science requires scientists, those with a combination of interest in the subject, knowledge of the subject and creative insight, to "see," to "discover" what no one had previously seen or discovered, and come up with new scientific principles. It is the most obvious feature of all true science.

Which Lyn has mystified for decades into something that appears, after he has completed his massive project of obfuscation, obtuse discussions and sheer verbosity, to be profound, appears, that is, to those who have already predisposed themselves to think of him as highly knowledgeable on the subject, namely, his followers of the moment. The rest of humanity is not similarly impressed.


Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 5:51 am:

Still on How Space Is Organized, his next paragraph is even more of a howler. Here, we are introduced to the quixotic concept of two types of "space-time," "simply visible" and "simply auditory." Apart from the already presented discussion of how "space-time" is an anachronism in any pre-1905 context, we are still compelled to ponder bemusedly what could possibly be running through Lyndon's brain when he penned "simply auditory space-time." From 1905 to the present, Einstein's relativistic notion of the "space-time continuum," where time became a co-equal dimension to the three spatial dimensions, all four interdependent on each other, has been the accepted "law" that explains the physical universe. "The physical universe." Yes, Virginia, the one we live in. You know, the one with the solar system, the Milky Way, several hundred billion other galaxies, lots of relatively empty space, and possibly lots of dark matter and energy floating around there too. That's what the term "space-time" is referring to. Now, since the only medium by which we can observe this universe is by capturing and interpreting electromagnetic waves, along the entire spectrum from infrared to cosmic rays, and visible light occupies one, fairly small, piece of real estate along this spectrum, it is customary to think of the domain of the universe as "visual," whether "simply visible" or "complexly visible," or whatever else formulation Lyndon may in the future choose to impose on the discussion I will leave to him and his how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin counting adulators to determine. But it's only truly "visual" in the sense that we create instruments that record measurements from the vast preponderance of the electromagnetic spectrum that we cannot see, and display them in ways we can see. And, in a few limited contexts, such as radio waves, in ways that we can hear as well.

But, oh and by the way, whatever else it might be, it certainly isn't audible. You see, there is just one slight hitch: audible requires a sound wave, and unlike light, sound cannot propagate through empty or near-empty space. It needs a medium, and the low density of particles even within the solar system is so low that acoustic waves cannot propagate. Not physically possible. End of story. And end of "auditory" sensory input to one's conception of space-time.

Returning to his words: there is not a "visual" space or space-time, nor an "auditory" space or space-time, much less a need to deny the existence of a "separate functional existence" for these two. We have no more need to deny the separate existence of "simply visual space-time" and "simply auditory space-time" than we have need to deny the separate existence of Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster. None of the four of them exists in the first place.

Moving on to the second half of the second paragraph, we shift from visual and auditory "space-time" to the human faculties of sight and hearing—very different concepts from "space-time," however interpreted. Reduced to its basic nouns and verbs, this sentence says that one "must" come to a "realization that…the apparently absolute contradiction between…sight and hearing…is the required foundation…for a competent practice of physical science." Just a few quickie observations. First of all, what "absolute contradiction?" By the same reasoning process one could speak of the "contradiction" between male and female genitals, even though sane people would tend to think of them as at least complementary, if not harmonious and not at all contradictory. They are different. Sight and hearing are two different faculties by which the brain can take in information about its surroundings. They are not in contradiction.


Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 6:05 am:

Secondly, as written, this sentence says that it is the apparent "absolute contradiction" that is the foundation of science!! Huh?? The contradiction itself is the foundation of science??

The only real meaning that could be teased out of the third paragraph is that, when applicable, the sense of hearing and sight can be complementary in understanding something about physical reality, say, like seeing lightning and counting the seconds until the thunder comes to estimate distance from the storm center. But Lyn refers to the way that these two senses "must" be "combined…as a manifold" as "providing a single conception…a visual-auditory standpoint." Umm, well folks, magician Lyndy just pulled a fast one. There is probably a Greek word for this piece of slight-of-hand, of trickery, this masterful demonstration of sophistry. Lyn neatly confuses the senses themselves with the information the senses provide. In the previous paragraph, he is talking about the domain of the sensory information, even if mislabeled as "space-time." In paragraph three (and the second half of paragraph two) we are dealing with the senses themselves, as the biologically evolved instruments of human perception of the outside world.

So, watch this one closely, Lyn's verbiage is faster than you might think in shifting the sands under one's metaphorical foot. We have a contradiction between "those two senses," which, "when they are combined," that is the senses themselves are combined, "in the method of experimental science, as a manifold." So, the actual senses of hearing and sight are somehow combined into some sort of higher order…what? What does it possibly mean, could possibly mean, to say that the senses themselves are combined? Wait, there's more. The sentence is fundamentally ungrammatical, so it cannot be determined, as written by the clearly unedited Lyndon, whether it is the contradiction between the senses, or the two senses themselves, that "provides a single conception located…" in a higher order in the brain. By grammar, it suggests that the "contradiction" itself "provides the conception." So, the contradiction provides the conception of the higher unity Lyn is positing.

It used to be that it was only in overcoming contradiction that one could achieve a higher unity. And one is free to "complete" Lyn by giving him the benefit of the doubt, and say "that's clearly what he meant." But it's not clear. He is talking about a "a state of mind" that is "above the superficiality of sense-perception as such." So, what is it? Is it some notion of a true combination of distinct senses? But what would that possibly mean? Is the ability of the brain to take visual and auditory stimuli and combine them in a thought process to help come up with a new hypothesis. Lyn makes no indication this is what he thinks he's talking about.

So, what's left? Empty words. A "visual-auditory manifold?" Whaaat? What could that possibly be? A manifold is not a state of mind. A manifold is an abstract mathematical space that is Euclidean locally, but can be non-Euclidean in the large. Lyn has clearly chosen to "overload" this concept here, by redefining it to suit his delusions on the fly, without telling anyone he was retiring it from its usual usage and definition, and redefining it, or rather misusing it without redefining it, so no one can possibly have any idea what it means, or even what he wants it to mean—it clearly doesn't mean anything, and wasn't meant to.

If anything intelligible can be extracted (with power saw, forceps and sharp scissors) from this mess, it could only be that simple sense perceptions do not create physical laws equal. Like I wrote earlier, duh, what else is new?

Everything else in these three paragraphs is either wrong, absurd, meaningless or double talk.


Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 11:10 am:

It is very noteworthy that LaRoucheTruth has gone to such great lenghts to decipher such gobbledy-gook but he really helps in pulling the curtain away from the Wizard. I couldn't help but wonder why Lyn limits himself to visible-space and auditory space. Why not tactile-space? and olfactory-space? Aren't these also sensesby which wecome to determine our position in the universe? Maybe you can say hat these senses don't apply to space but as LaRTruth notes, neither would auditory sense. I doubt even the big bang made much noise.
Lyn really seems to be nothing more than a neo-Platonist who insists that everything can be unified by the Idea. As Sancho noted, in earlier times he applied the golden mean to try and indicate the geometric principles that defined life. And certainly the golden mean provided much fertile soil for looking at the principles of biological growth and reproduction, and has been applied in many other areas such as in the Arts. The problem is that he elevates these ideas into numerology. I am sure that even "empirical" scientists and mathematicians are aware of the Greek math of Pythagoras and others. The question is what actual problems has Lyn solved with his "grasp" of math? Has he even developed any mathematical formulas that would enable us to apply any of his so-called principles? Of course Lyn would say that formulae are reductionist expressions of true creativity, which is the typical response of a liberal arts student when dealing with matters in science, math or engineering that are actually beyond him.


Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 11:12 am:

It is very noteworthy that LaRoucheTruth has gone to such great lenghts to decipher such gobbledy-gook but he really helps in pulling the curtain away from the Wizard. I couldn't help but wonder why Lyn limits himself to visible-space and auditory space. Why not tactile-space? and olfactory-space? Aren't these also sensesby which wecome to determine our position in the universe? Maybe you can say hat these senses don't apply to space but as LaRTruth notes, neither would auditory sense. I doubt even the big bang made much noise.
Lyn really seems to be nothing more than a neo-Platonist who insists that everything can be unified by the Idea. As Sancho noted, in earlier times he applied the golden mean to try and indicate the geometric principles that defined life. And certainly the golden mean provided much fertile soil for looking at the principles of biological growth and reproduction, and has been applied in many other areas such as in the Arts. The problem is that he elevates these ideas into numerology. I am sure that even "empirical" scientists and mathematicians are aware of the Greek math of Pythagoras and others. The question is what actual problems has Lyn solved with his "grasp" of math? Has he even developed any mathematical formulas that would enable us to apply any of his so-called principles? Of course Lyn would say that formulae are reductionist expressions of true creativity, which is the typical response of a liberal arts student when dealing with matters in science, math or engineering that are actually beyond him.


Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 12:28 pm:


I follow what your saying. In humble opinion, I would say your display of words is full of sound and fury, but it signifies little. You know some things about Kepler and scientific method! I'm mildly impressed. What you fail to admit is that LaRouche makes no claim to be a scientist, per se. On the other hand, he often claims to be an economist. When we talk about economics, pure science is not the issue in most cases. LaRouche writes primarily as someone intending to create a political effect. Sometimes he does it quite well, thank you very much. Most of what you are doing is just picking out sentences and picking out phrases, and picking them apart, to pick on LaRouche, not to mention calling me a liar. It's a bit shrill. If it's any consolation to you, I'm probably not going to read LaRouche's paper.


Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 12:50 pm:

"What you fail to admit is that LaRouche makes no claim to be a scientist, per se." -- "brewncue"

Um, xlcr posted this on September 2,

wherein the following psychedelic experience is recorded:

What's not doubted? The veracity of Dick Cheney being a child of Satan?

LaRouche: I think that's generally understood what that means, exactly as I described it. Exactly. I don't just use words: I'm a scientist. When I use a term, I qualify what I mean by it, and my qualification of that terminology, the way I've gone into depth on this, I think is probably very high grade, in terms of veracity.

I—I apol—. You're a scientist. I apol—I, um.

We apologize for not telling our audience. That's actually our lack of foresight. We forgot to introduce your credentials. But, because I don't really know them, you're welcome to share them with the audience.

LaRouche: Well, I happen to be the most successful long-range economic forecaster in the past 30 years.

And you're a scientist.

LaRouche: When everybody else is wrong on this one. When the opposition has been wrong. So, I think my—the issue of 1971, some of the issues of the middle of the 1970s; my role in, for example, the SDI. One of the things I'm most unpopular for, is, I sold the idea of SDI to President Reagan and his circle, and we worked on it, and I became very unpopular because of that. But that's part of it. I was also the organizer of the Fusion Energy Foundation, which was for a period of time, one of the leading scientific foundations in the United States. I'm involved in this internationally, so there's no question about these credentials. People can find them very easily, if they looked up the website: all the information of relevance is there.

LaRouche is Walter Mitty. He is a scientist, forecaster, Indian chief, fireman, philologist, tax cheat - you name it. He's a real Renaissance Fraud.


Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 1:11 pm:

"What you fail to admit is that LaRouche makes no claim to be a scientist, per se. "


Take the WABAC machine to my post on Sep 2, 2007.

"Q: What's not doubted? The veracity of Dick Cheney being a child of Satan?

LaRouche: I think that's generally understood what that means, exactly as I described it. Exactly. I don't just use words: I'm a scientist. When I use a term, I qualify what I mean by it, and my qualification of that terminology, the way I've gone into depth on this, I think is probably very high grade, in terms of veracity.

I—I apol. You're a scientist. I apol—I, um.

We apologize for not telling our audience. That's actually our lack of foresight. We forgot to introduce your credentials. But, because I don't really know them, you're welcome to share them with the audience.

LaRouche: Well, I happen to be the most successful long-range economic forecaster in the past 30 years.

And you're a scientist.

LaRouche: When everybody else is wrong on this one. When the opposition has been wrong. So, I think my—the issue of 1971, some of the issues of the middle of the 1970s; my role in, for example, the SDI. One of the things I'm most unpopular for, is, I sold the idea of SDI to President Reagan and his circle, and we worked on it, and I became very unpopular because of that. ..."

In Mexico Lyn is a scientist. He can join the donkey show in Tijuana.

" At the welcoming ceremony before LaRouche spoke at the UAC, the dean of the university spoke on the importance of statesman and scientist LaRouche's visit, as did a former dean."

Lyn is a scientist on this site.


What is funny is see so many healdines by Lyn that the economy is going to finally collapse in one memorial tribute page.

Have you forgotten the convicted criminal and tax fraud monikers for Lyn? Compared to being a self proclaimed scientist, those two have been shown to be true. Lyn also has a NY State court ruling that he is a "Small time Hitler" in his ADL case.

Next you will be telling me and the yutes that Lyn is a real estate genius. Wait, that is my job.


Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 11:36 pm:

Again, it must be asked, "Who You, Brewncue?" Your latest reply sure appears to be of a piece with your previous, for which the most logical explanation is that you are really putting us, or more accurately, the LYM readership of this blog, on, in a good cause, by showing them the absurdity of any attempt to try to justify the things that LaRouche says that have been pointed out on this blog to be utter nonsense, and worse.

Do you suffer from relatively advanced Alzheimers, or some other form of dementia? Or is it just amnesia? Do you process information from short-term into long-term memory, or do you suffer from the inability to do that? I ask because first, you appear unable to remember what I wrote when you post your replies—it reads as though as you are writing, you actually have no memory of having just read what I wrote, and b) you are completely forgetting things you, and I, wrote back and forth a few weeks ago, not to mention most of what LaRouche himself has written, and continues to write, on relevant topics. This makes rational interchange with you next to impossible.

Again, for the sake of others reading this, I will briefly respond to your latest.

Let's look at your charge that "what you fail to admit is that LaRouche makes no claim to be a scientist, per se." I actually disagree with Sancho and xlcr, in that you are, I believe, saying something different from they are answering. You clearly mean that LaRouche is not a physicist, an astrophysicist or a mathematician, and doesn't claim to be one, and that is correct, as far as it goes, which unfortunately, isn't very far. The humorous aspect is that you, inadvertently, to be sure, make the very point I was trying to make. There is some background, here, that you may not know as well. So, here's what you need to know.

LaRouche has pretences not that he is, per se, as you phrase it, a scientist, but that he understands the most basic principles that underlie the selected scientific disciplines he chooses to reference, mainly physics and astrophysics, and also mathematics. Given this, it is technically irrelevant whether he "is" or "is not" a "scientist per se," since he puts himself forth as a lay person qualified to competently and accurately talk about whatever he talks about. That is, when he says that Kepler stood for such and such, and discovered such and such, and that Leibniz, Gauss and Riemann did likewise, while LaGrange, LaPlace and Descartes were trying to destroy true scientific method, he is claiming to be competent to judge such matters, which he could only justifiably do if he had a pretty good grounding in the respective disciplines. This would mean he would need to understand the basic scientific advances of a Kepler, a Bernoulli or two, Franklin, Faraday, Einstein, Planck, etc. And he would need to be reasonably advanced in his mathematical knowledge of Leibniz, Descartes, Gauss, Riemann, and a host of others, including at least some advanced calculus, differential equations and some intermediate-level topology.

Nothing Lyn has ever written on any of these topics evinces the least degree of understanding of anything that would qualify him to make his statements. Within a few weeks I will explore this side of LaRouche in more depth, so I won't go further here. But Brewncue, the funny thing is, the purport of what you wrote is to concede that LaRouche is no scientist, and that it is only fair to judge him in the domain of economics. Well, you are half right. LaRouche is no scientist. But you are wrong that it's not fair to judge him when he delves into physics, astro-physics and math, since he puts himself forward as way far more advanced than any of his readers in all these areas of science and math.


Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 11:48 pm:

To turn to Lyn's statement that "I am a scientist" quoted by Sancho and xlcr, let's understand what he's saying here. First of all, in other places, where he has stated that anyone laying claim to have anything useful to add to the sum of human knowledge needs to have discovered a universal scientific principle on the scale of the principle of universal gravitation (no big deal, most people do that at least several times a year, if not more often—who says there is stagnation in science?) and then included himself in the equation, he, for the purposes of that discussion, considers economics, at least the species of economics that he claims to practice, to be a science, so that he is, therefore, ipso facto, a scientist too. He claims, in short, to be a scientist in the discipline of physical economics, the economics of actually running an economy to foster manufacturing, agriculture and infrastructure. And to understand the dynamics of the present system, above all, of its financial system.

However, if you read the "I am a scientist" quote carefully in context, he is saying something else which makes him total fair game for anyone to critique. He is clearly claiming that he speaks, always, with the highest regard for being "scientifically" accurate if you will. He brings this up in the context of his attacks on Cheney as the child of Satan, and claims that he calls him that with the same degree of certitude that a scientist reports a scientific finding of which he is absolutely certain. So, Brewncue, by his own assertion, we can in total fairness to LaRouche, expose the absurdity of anything he says in the domains of science and mathematics because he claims that they have the force of truth based on his "scientific-like" understanding of the subject matter.

As for his claims in the area of economics and politics, yes, he certainly does claim that these are the areas of his greatest contributions. But, Brewncue, that's where we—you and I—came in. I have posted two series of posts (and some others subsequently) demolishing LaRouche's claim to understand the present financial crisis, or to having anything sane to propose to deal with it, in direct response to your request for someone to discuss "content" and not just attack LaRouche, and your last response on this, prior to your several weeks of radio silence, was to say that you had written part of a response, but had decided not to post it, giving no reason. I asked you to please rewrite it and send it, but I am still waiting.

So, for you to come back at me, of all people, with that LaRouche is primarily most competent in economics, without thanking me for taking the time to show you why his claims to being a good economist are baseless, and for you to in fact ignore everything I wrote on this, above all for your benefit, is pretty low. Unless you really don't remember any of that.

To say I am "picking out sentences and picking out phrases" from LaRouche's writings, runs up against the same point I mention above: Since LaRouche claims that everything he writes or says is effectively "scientifically correct," if I believe that something he has written is mindlessly idiotic, how else can I show that than by showing that, in reference to the precise sentences and phrases in which LaRouche says whatever I have a problem with? As to calling you a liar, you accused me of rejecting Kepler. Since I did no such thing, I didn't know what else to call your lying assertion to that effect. And as for reading LaRouche's paper, you must be a singularly humorless person, since it is a real hoot, a real kick. You are missing a source of considerable, and healthy, laughter.

At least sometimes Lyn is good for something.


Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 5:14 pm:


I'm glad you cleared up the "I am a scientist" issue. I, too, was thinking it's just a question of semantics.

larouchetruth, I suspect that if you ever had a chance to talk to LaRouche personally, you would be surprised to find how knowledgable he is. I think there is a sound reason he was invited to become a member of Russia's Academy of Sciences. As far as I know, he is the only American to be given that distinction. LaRouche has made a contribution to "science" which I believe is fundamental. He developed the notion that any idea, whether it be scientific, social, or cultural, is relatively valid only insofar as it has a positive impact on what LaRouche calls potential relative population density. You might not be impressed by LaRouche's insight. You might think it's self-evident, or simple. However, one could probably think of other fundamental discoveries that also seem self-evident, but only after someone else has made it.

Pobisk Kuznetsov, who was a well-respected and influential scientist in Russia had indepenently developed ideas similar to LaRouche's. He was so impressed by LaRouche's work, that he wished to coin a new scientific, quasi-mathematical term to describe LaRouche's discovery--the "la". LaRouche rejected this idea because he insisted that his discovery cannot be reduced to anything resembling a mathematical construct. I'm saying all this because I think you are making a mistake which is in some ways similar to Kuznetsov's mistake. You want everything LaRouche writes to follow a code of precision which coheres with your conception of what is acceptable as science. You want to reduce everything to a pattern that is logical and emperically sound. If someone breaks that convention, you pick it apart.

In my humble opinion, I think the world shouldn't always work the way you want it to. And you know what? It doesn't! What you find so completely unacceptable about LaRouche, other's, many other's, find adorable. I think maybe I will read that paper! I've read many other paper's from LaRouche. I've read a lot. I have always found LaRouche to be the most most insightful and inspiring author I have ever read.


Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 6:11 pm:


I spoke with LaRouche "personally" one-on-one and found him to be a complete moron, a flaming bullshit artist of the highest order. I've never met anyone who was LESS impressive in terms of exhibiting a genuine interest about an intellectual/scientific/technical issue that he himself advertised as a key, decisive matter of great interest and import.

The test is to discsss something that you yourself have truly mastered. Lyn (and, it appears, LaRoucheTruth too) talk/write about a huge variety of topics. Unless you are truly informed, it is very difficult to discern whether or not they possess deep insight/knowledge or whether they are simply repeating or parroting some banal superficially. Lyn, to me, came off as a charlatan; he was simply "posing" (bluffing) as if the conversation was a game.

Later, when I get the energy and the time, I'll write a short account of my "discussion" with Lyn and present evidence that he is an intellectual fraud.

Again, it is hard to judge such matters unless the topic involves something that you yourself have truly mastered.


Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 7:30 pm:

Being busy with things that are possibly less important and interesting, but nonetheless more urgent personally, I've only quickly scanned some of the posts on LHL's recent output. But two points:

(1) Regardless of the merits of each and every element or claim of LaRouche's never-ending tour d'horizon of All Subjects, what is ultimately the worth of a theory or worldview, whatever its window-dressing or intellectual trappings or armamenterium, if it leads you to notions like: (1) 9/11 was the work of an elite Anglo-American security/intelligence cabal; (2) "Global Warming" is a Malthusian propaganda plot meant to depopulate the world; (3) the world is (once again, for the umpteenth time in the last 35 years) in the midst of an onrushing, cataclysmic end-of-the-world financial and economic collapse; etc., ad nauseum?

(2) Why would any serious thinker or writer find it necessary or helpful to obscure his thoughts in such turgid, pompous, ponderous, high-fallutin', bizarrely idiosyncratic, virtually-incomprehensible, obscurantist language? In places, not even comprehensible or grammatically correct (or remotely correct) English. It's a sign of a calculated snow-job, or of a man who's mentally decomposing, or some combination of the two.


Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 9:45 pm:

LaRouche works for Cheney and the Big Bourgeoisie Globalists.

His main function is to taint conspiracy theorists – to make sure that they are NOT taken seriously.

When he advocates a reasonable point of view, it becomes tainted by his obvious, documented insanity. But this is the purpose of his existence.

LaRouche works for The Man. He is an enemy of working people everywhere.


Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 10:38 pm:

A LaRouche Literary Ana

On the "It's Always the Woman" Theme: LaRouche Does Shakespeare.

1. The execrable production of bits of King Lear put on at a National Conference by Chicago, under the leadership of Terry J and Sheila J, and enthusiastically, no, wildly endorsed by Tony Papert and LaRouche. The great thing about this rendition is that Cordelia was the villain. How do I know? Director Terry J said so.

2. LaRouche's musings on Ophelia in Hamlet. She was the problem--another Madonna-Whore out to destroy the man....

Desdemona? Her fault. She drove Othello to it. (Do you think I'm kidding? No such luck.)

3. The appalling piece of tripe by Larry H(Tony Papert's dearest friend) and Marje H titled "Portia Was a Racist •••••." LaRouche endorsed that, too. Whatever you may think of the equity of Portia's judgments, you can be sure that William Shakespeare didn't see her as a "racist •••••."

LaRouche Reads a Book--or At Least, Reviews One

Recently had the occasion to read the book The Golem by Yudl Rosenberg, translated by Curt Leviant. Astute readers of FactNet will remember that LaRouche reviewed this ( in May of 2007.

You may even remember that he gave special mention to translator Curt Leviant's Introduction (I suggested at the time that the Introduction was precisely what LaRouche had read).

Well, now I've read the whole book, and LaRouche's hilarious iteration of every Jewish predicate he can come up with--Moses Mendelssohn, Heinrich Heine, Yiddish Renaissance, Sholem Aleichem, the Workmen's Circle--is even more uproarious after I've read the book.

The author, Yudl Rosenberg, was a rabbi and Talmud scholar with an intense interest in the kabbalah. The hero of The Golem, Rabbi Yehudah Loewe of Prague, is a mystic kabbalah scholar.

Jiminy Cricket! You think LaRouche knew that when he wrote the review? Can there be anyone with less in common with the Workmen's Circle?

Dear me, what an embarrassment. Another lesson in the importance of reading to the end of the book.

(Message edited by eaglebeak on September 10, 2007)


Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 10:44 pm:

Social Notes from All Over

Heard It Thru the Grapevine

Here's an intriguing chronology I was recently briefed on. Sorry not to have more info--but stay tuned.

Thursday Aug. 16 BB calls MK to demand to know if she's in touch with Dennis King or Avi Klein. Acrimonious conversation ensues. Don't know all the details.

Friday Aug. 17 MK receives letter from NS marked Personal and Confidential in which NS says, in a characteristically affectionate formulation, that Ken Kronberg's "biggest mistake was to commit suicide." NS asks MK to support the organization.

Saturday, Aug. 18 LHL's "Bush-League Molly" memo to NCs appears in Morning Briefing, the one about Molly and Ken and George Bush.

Sunday, Aug. 19 "Official" memo appears in morning briefing exposing Molly's donations to GOP.

Sunday, Aug. 19 MK's "alpha" logon disabled, barring her from access to org computer network. MK tells others she has apparently been expelled from org.

Monday, Aug. 20 BB calls MK, says I hear you think you've been expelled, ha ha, why would you think that, just because we cut your logon off by mistake, ha ha, but we decided to leave it off because you're tossing things over the fence, but of course you're still a member, just a member without alpha privileges--but not expelled, ha ha, certainly not.

MK to BB: I've heard a lot of dumb things in my life, but that's gotta be the dumbest.

Eaglebeak's Two Cents

Here's a word of warning to Molly Kronberg: Check under your car in the mornings before you drive off.

Get your brakes checked, too. Know what I mean?

Not entirely a joke....


Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 11:40 pm:

Well, it appears that the jury has just come in on "the Brewncue Question." Brewncue's latest, in response to me, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he's putting us on, for the benefit of the LYM readership of this blog, to hold up to them the absurdity of the only "defense" that a LaRouche supporter can mount against what I and others have presented in this forum. Because he has, in his latest, done just what the hardest of hard-core LaRouche prisoners do when they are presented with massive, overwhelming evidence of what is wrong with what LaRouche is saying.

To begin anywhere, somewhere in your clever parody of a LaRouchie, to help draw out for LYM members some subtleties they might miss, depending on where they are with respect to the LaRouche event horizon, I suspect you have never had a chance to talk with LaRouche personally. My experience coheres with that of everyone else I have ever compared notes with: if you are challenging something he says, expect he will absolutely refuse to engage you or your argument in any way, and will instead give some completely unrelated or irrelevant response with no apparent connection to the question, and/or, often at a later time, he will then attack you ad hominem, still never addressing the issue at hand, but trying to blacken you so that no one else in the organization will listen to you.

Earnest_one has it right on the money. You need to independently know something before taking on something LaRouche says, and if you do, will find he knows next to nothing about anything. He is the world's greatest name dropper in terms of names culled from others' research on world history, from which he plagiarizes only those conclusions and names that fit his preconceived construct of world history, about which I will have more by and by.

On your feigned favorable view of LaRouche saying that the true test of the validity of any idea is its impact on relative potential population density, that's a howler. Well done. LYM members, do get the joke? Let's take Kepler's laws. Just for fun, I mean. So, according to Brewncue's version of LaRouche, which is a basically accurate view, Kepler's laws had no validity until it was demonstrated that they had a positive impact on relative potential population density. Which means, until this positive impact was noticed and documented, Kepler's laws were, evidently, invalid. After all, it wouldn't do to project the possibility, or even the likelihood, that they might have such a positive impact at some time in the distant future. Clearly, this had to be shown. And likewise for every other discovered law of physics, chemistry, biology and astrophysics. And Brewncue, I'm sure you can show us who has documented these positive impacts, so we may date the precise point in time when these theories became valid.

And I'm sure you can also, inform us as to what metric is used to measure relative potential population density. Which "measure," by the way, is intrinsically unmeasurable. But I'll be generous, and let you get by with amending your formulation to mean that any valid law has to show its utility to helping improve technologies that help increase economic productivity, which I think is what this notion is driving at anyway. The point still stands, that you have taken validity away from science, and made it utilitarian. If it's not technologically useful, it isn't valid. Splendid. And how did Gauss' discovery of the orbit of Ceres help technology. Anyway, the reductio ad absurdum is clear.


Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 11:42 pm:

Oh, and on the "scientist," issue, bravo for demonstrating the extreme obtuseness that a LaRouchie would exhibit, clearly missing every single point I was making on this. What I "cleared up" is that while LaRouche doesn't claim to be a physical scientist, he claims to understand the essence of their disciplines without being one—quite a good trick that no one else in history, not Plato, not Cusa, not Franklin, not anyone before him, has ever mastered, nor claimed to master. They, plodders that they were, all felt that they had to know something about the subject before they could claim to understand it.

And wow, right on, typical LaRouche, if you can't respond to an argument, cite someone else who likes LaRouche, in this case some Russians, to try to bully you into thinking you must be wrong if "they" like him and his ideas. Over time, just about every one of these "theys" peel off, as they more fully understand who LaRouche is, but, as P.T. Barnum knew, there's a sucker born pretty often.

What you say I find so "completely unacceptable about LaRouche" I have documented in great detail and specificity here, and you have yet to dispute a single thing I have written, yet you come back to say that you find these exact points "adorable." Again, LYM members, surely you see how he mocks you, challenging you to ignore everything that I have written, in favor of a "feeling" that LaRouche must be right just the same, even if you can't refute my arguments. Brewncue, what are you going to do for an encore?

Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 6:58 am:

"It's a sign of a calculated snow-job, or of a man who's mentally decomposing, or some combination of the two." Indeed.


| |


| |

| MONDAY, SEPT 10, 2007 |

| |



FROM:LAR " Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. "



September 9, 2007 (2:10pm) ECT

For the Record:


Recently, an associate has raised, repeatedly, the assertion that my current policies on the subjects of Marxian economy and Roosevelt have changed, that almost axiomatically, over the course of the recent three-and-a- half-decades. I have replied, each time, by pointing to evidence that that is not true. In fact, the truth is that the values of some among our associates have changed as the years have gone by; a shift from onward-looking combat for a cause, to a contemplative outlook, from us in combat for mankind, to adjusting to views which might be more acceptable to those who never made our commitment to humanity, those among extended family and kindred sorts of social connections. The principle expressed is that, brave soldiers are most likely to be found among younger adults under approximately thirty-five years of age.

To provide the message needed to quell the idle speculation about my supposed change of views on these matters, the following small piece is placed on our record.

My outlook has not changed in any essentials, on either Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or principles of economy, since the developments of the 1946-1953 interval. This point is shown most immediately, and clearly, by my adoption of the work of Bernard Riemann, in 1953, as an outgrowth of my Spring 1948 reflections on my January 1948 reading of Professor Norbert Weiner's Cybernetics. That view on the science of economy was consolidated by my successful long-range economic forecasting during the interval 1956-1960, a method rooted in the anti-Euclidean outlook on the method for physical science which I adopted early during my adolescence.


Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 7:03 am:

It is very much to the point, that I have never shared the empiricist's or so-called Anglo-Dutch Liberal's view, that "opinions about this or that" are matters to be treated as substitutes for principles. For me, as for all competent science, principles are either universal, or they are not principles, although knowledge of them is acquired through an historical process.

Take the case of Molly Kronberg. Some people were shocked by the evidence, from the public record, that she had gone over to the political enemy. Why? I was already aware of this by about 1990. If the evidence were overlooked, her perfervid devotion to ways and things Brutish marked her as the wife of a loyal member who had gone over to intellectual affiliation with the enemy cause. Every time I spoke unfavorably of our republic's principal long- term foe, the "Brutish Empire," Molly would slam her books on the floor and storm out; she had already gone over to the other side, and sooner or later she would choose a new destiny, as Linda de Hoyos, and Uwe Friesecke had done with the scheme he unleashed on the instant he knew I was being shipped to a prison from which he was confident I would not return alive.

Or take the case of those departed souls, such as the bunch who were not only taken in by the Winstar scam, an outright scam, in even its bare conception, from the outset, but adopted change in moral and practical expressions of a philosophical world-outlook contrary to the standpoint of my life's work in our association. They were typical of those who, out of cowardice, reacted to the developments of 1984-1989, by surrendering, emotionally and intellectually to the enemy, waving the "white flag of surrender" while shouting to the smiling adversary, "Please, don't shoot us; we and our families need that money!"

"Lyn is wrong about the economy," was the common expression of this fear-driven apostasy, The ranks of the "Gideon's Army" grew smaller in this way.

This problem, as a flight from sane economic outlook into middle-class Baby-Boomer-style fantasy-life, became clear to me in January 1996, at the first general meeting on behalf of my Presidential election. This sickened state of mind ran rampant through our association through the 2000 collapse of the Y2K bubble.

It was that state of mind among a significant number of those among and around us, which not only bankrupted PMR virtually by 2000, but had virtually bankrupted our association as a by-product of the loss of the subscription fulfilment (for New Federalist, EIR, and others) which had been our association's chief economic base of continued operations, and "fourth circle" base of organized political and related support.


Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 7:05 am:

Today, we are faced with the situation among us, that belief in Winstar, in the fantasies of PMR's management, and so on, are already gone or waning among those of us with even the shards of sanity, but the scars on the mind which formerly habituated illusions have produced, persist. During that period, when those and kindred, misleading fantasies were treated as "inside knowledge" of the gossip circuits, the outlooks of those victimized by these errant fads were habituated among some as "our traditions," even when those policies themselves were dead.

As relevant publications and policies of outreach, from the 1970s on attest, we were always premised on what came to be hated among what are now our former associates in the U.S.A. and Europe, whether the anglophile whores of "Uriah Heep" Friesecke's gang of habituated liars, the "right wingers" from the downward flow of the left bank of the Rhine, or Fearful Fernando's Fascist Fakers in the U.S.A.

All that is historical and otherwise fact, but the more interesting aspect of the matter is that which touches, here and there, on matters which have actual bearing, not on mere liberal doses of "our traditional" gossip, but matters bearing on points of actual pinciple.

Karl Marx's Economics

Karl Marx had no serious presence in economics until he had arrived, as already a member of Lord Palmerston's Young Europe association, under the immediate supervision of that veteran British foreign-office agent Urquhart who was then serving, in his post at the British Library, as the general secretary for correspondence with branches of the International Young Europe association. Under Urquhart's eagle eye, Marx was steered through the standard hagiolatry of the former Foreign Office Secret Committee secretary Jeremy Bentham's Haileybury School. All during the time Marx was actually controlled by Bentham's trainee and successor, the Lord Palmerston whom Russia-hating Karl Marx denounced in an entire book which purported to expose Palmerston as a Russian spy.

It attests to British methods, still today, that Karl Marx's appointment to his position as Secretary of the "First International" was announced, at a London public meeting, by Palmerston's official head of the Young Europe association.


Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 7:07 am:

The point respecting Marxian economics which is of maximum relevance for us in this review, is that Marxian economics is a branch of British imperial economic dogma, and is premised entirely on the axiomatic assumptions of the Physiocrats, Mandeville, Adam Smith, Gianmaria Ortes, et al. The historical and otherwise practical significance of this fact for us today, is that with the exception of the interval 1933-1964, as extended to the onset of the Nixon Presidency, the international monetary-financial system as a whole, was an extension of the British empire-in-fact established with the February 1763 Peace of Paris, the founding of the empire, then under the East India Company, which conclusively superseded the Peace of Westphalia.

That system, as it was crafted under Haileybury's influence, is the system which, with that noted exception has ruled and ruined the world at large over the entire span of that time, as expressed in the present plunge toward the establishment of a global new dark age, today.

We have ("we" as I typify "we") the best insight into this system of any known person, or persons living today. We also have a method of forecasting, developed uniquely by me, which is systemically rooted in the method which Bernard Riemann crafted on his principal predecessors, from Cusa and Kepler, through Liebniz, and Riemann. My method of forecasting is systemically dynamic, whereas all putative rivals, including my foolishly forecasting friends in Leesburg and elsewhere, rely upon statistical-forecasting methods derived from Descartes. Marx was a neo-Cartesian on this account.

Similarly, all of my views on human nature and society, including those akin to Vernadsky's, are premised on the Riemannian method which I adopted in 1953, as the appropriate point of reference for overturning the swinishness of Norbert Weiner and John v. Neumann.

Stay with principles, rather than gossip or "positions."

The mental map of the universe in which I live, once built, never changes in any essential feature of practice, until the person holding such a map is dead, in one sense or another. Most people in my time have not shown convincing evidence that they have such a coherent map, although they will, nonetheless, unwittingly, be possessed by one.

Wow, enjoy yourselves yutes, he's your daddy.


Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 7:19 am:

Wow, what a lying piece of s---.

And to dismiss all of Marx's work so cavalierly because Marx knew A who knew B who knew C? LaRouche is a moronic piece of s--- as well.


Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 11:30 am:

On "ideas" and their impact on Larouche's notion of "potential relative population-density" (PRPD)

The "connection" between "ideas" and the PRPD, in Larouche's mind, is "creativity", the "creative mind" (aka "genius"), via technological breakthroughs.
That is why the LYM are told to study Kepler: the point is not to become an astronomer (or astrologer) but to replicate, to access to his "creative genius". (at least officially...)
The belief is that, somehow, when they are replicating Kepler creative genius, ie "tuning" to the laws of the universe (or C-256?), they would, eventually, have an impact on the PRPD (eg "Saving Mankind from genocide" etc).
This is madness! Pure magic.
Larouche is a mystic in the tradition of the neoplatonists of the 17th C onwards, not a scientist.
He believes he has a direct access to "truth" (a secret access known only to the… well you know!), a secret access to the noumenes world of pure ideas, to the Logos. In his mind, facts (phenoumenes) are mere "logical" consequences (deduction) from these "pure ideas" (aka his "hypotheses" which in fact, never are "hypotheses"!). He believes that "creativity" is superior to mere "procreativity" (women!!)… and only "creativity" has an impact on the PRPD. He believes that only "creative geniuses" like himself have access to this mysterious world of pure ideas. He really believes that whatever he thinks ("creatively") it is the Truth, the reality, and facts have to be bent to this "higher reality"... be it the Financial Crash or WW3 or whatever… He believes he is the "Truth incarnate".
It is a cult, quite indeed.

Now let's have a look at this universal genius par excellence: Leonardo da Vinci.
Well, Leonardo's notebooks and manuscripts that contain all his research both in arts and science were literally buried for… centuries!
These notebooks were never published, neither by Leonardo nor his heirs.
They remained obscure until the 19th century, and were not directly of value to the development of science and technology. His paintings (reflecting his creative genius that "may" have inspired some) were made accessible very recently too.
It's only in the last 50 years that scientists and historians started realizing how much scientifically ahead of his time he was.
Now what was the impact of Leonardo's scientific discoveries on the RPPD or even on sciences?
Zero, zilt, nada!
Leonardo's notebooks are a goldmine for historians and those who admire his genius, but in real terms, his impact on the RPPD, sciences and society was inexistent. So much for the greatest genius of all times.

What Larouche and the LYM dont understand is that scientific breakthroughs are not as "romantic" as they believe (the "lonely and misunderstood genius"), a la "Faust".
Scientific breakthroughs are a product of a social interaction amongst the scientific community, a product of contradictory debates, of hard work to convince your own peers. No snobbish "above and apart" postures would work... Even a snob and hypochondriac like Godel worked hard to convince... an Albert Einstein! Even a very reclusive person like Godel wasn't living in an Ivory Tower like Larouche is!!

The LYM's "Kepler sessions" for would-be "geniuses" are pure intellectual masturbation.
And "masturbation", be it "intellectual" or "physical", if it is not meant to achieve something real, it is a sterile exercise both in creative and pro-creative terms.


Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 11:32 am:

LYM-ers, when you joined LaRouche, you signed a Faustian pact… and both your soul and body will become as sterile as the remaining deadenders'...


Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 1:58 pm:

More on Marx

LaRouche's take on Marx above illustrates several things about his true methodology:

(1) first and foremost, LaRouche is a liar; by his own admission (see, among other places, The Conceptual History of the Labor Committees) he was a dedicated Marxist from at least his early twenties - FDR had NOTHING to do with it, except perhaps for the latter's alliance with Stalin;

(2) when the switch was made in the seventies from Marx to the "American System" crap, the typically LaRouchian mental twist was evidenced as in the above memo: everyone in society recognizes an apple to be nothing else but an apple; LaRouche comes along and says that the apple is really an orange, and that people who think an apple is an apple are swinish, etc. This is how LaRouche believes himself to be a genius, by making such arbitrary pronouncements without adducing a shred of evidence or argument. No wonder the LYMers have such trouble breaking the spell, because once you fall for this trick and continue to fall for it, it becomes very hard to get back to the real world where an apple is an apple;

(3) "The mental map of the universe in which I live, once built, never changes in any essential feature of practice, until the person holding such a map is dead, in one sense or another." -- isn't this the very antithesis of life, a rigid map to which one must adhere at all costs? This may the scariest self-admission yet from the addled cult leader;

(4) and of course, LaRouche is never wrong about anything - for you followers of his, doesn't that tell you that something is rotten in the state of Denmark? Are you so far gone that you believe one human being can be inerrant on all matters? Has your maturation into adult human beings been so frozen that you cannot recognize just how bonkers it is for someone to claim such inerrancy?

Think about it.


Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 7:02 pm:

If that interaction between Molly K, BB (Barbara Boyd?) and NS (Nancy Spannaus?) is accurate - and I don't think Eaglebeak made it up - it points out clearly what a bunch of whackos are still running around in Leesburg. Molly's characterization of the statement to her by BB was, at best, kind. If I had been in her shoes I think I would have been asking BB this:

Are you mad?! Have you totally lost your mind?!

And that would have been the opener.


Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 9:11 pm:

Somehow, I can only read Lyn's latest screed by picturing him in a Pope Hat. With words like:

"of this fear-driven apostasy, The ranks of the "Gideon's Army"

grew smaller in this way. "

Wow, maybe the upstairs room at the old book store was supposed to be a temple or shrine of sorts complete with nightly rituals to worship him. We do know that the barn at Ibykus served suc ha purpose for Lyn's Easter servicing of the dwindling membership.

The final paragraph:

"The mental map of the universe in which I live, once built, never changes in any essential feature of practice, until the person holding such a map is dead, in one sense or another. Most people in my time have not shown convincing evidence that they have such a coherent map, although they will, nonetheless, unwittingly, be possessed by one. "

is worthy of winning a Charles manson award for composition. You members only exist because of me and you have no idea of how much I control you is what I get out of this. This really takes me back to the early 1980s when Lyn declared that nothing in the LC publications can exist without him being the main reason for it's existance.

This time, with nothing mailed or published except for a 70,000 email list of names, we only have the remnants of the Leesburg deadenders and dopey LYM members to scavage.

Manson had his Squeeky Fromme and Patricia "Katie" Krenwinkel. Lyn has his Nancy and Babara to worship him in his larouche Family.


Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 12:06 am:

Plato, Cusa, and Franklin are "plodders." LaRouche is a "moron." This is fun!


Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 6:59 am:

Actually, no, bc, Plato, Cusa and Franklin were not "plodders." It's called "being facetious." It's a device that people sometimes use to make a certain point. My point here was that LaRouche, alone among people who either genuinely are, or who have pretentions to be, great thinkers, believes that he can master a new subject about which he initially may have known little or nothing, by quickly glossing it. He believes--and believe me, he has put this point into print on any number of occasions, though none recently enough for me to quote chapter and verse, though perhaps some others out there may be able to, and can certainly corroborate my assertion--that he has the ability to abstract some essence, some fundamental principles, in a time far shorter than anyone, even a genius, would normally require to become proficient in a discipline. So, my facetious (go ahead, look it up in the dictionary) remark was a way of saying that LaRouche fancies himself much more intelligent than the greatest minds of past history, who, compared to him, are mere "plodders." In LaRouche's own mind, that is, not in reality. That's what makes it facetious. Get it, now, bc?? Hmmm, "bc." "Beyond cretinism," perhaps?

Oh, and LaRouche is not a "moron," either. It's not about native intelligence, of which LaRouche has more than an average share. It's what he chooses to do with it. He is, as I showed in a post some weeks ago, a pathological liar, which is an expression of his hyper-egotism. He's also a paranoid, which I shall show at some point in the future, which often goes hand in glove with pathological lying, and may be its cause in some individuals. The pathological liar can typically be very intelligent. But, as LaRouche's internal memo posted yesterday reveals, pathological liars, because they actually believe what they are saying at the moment, typically have no awareness that they are saying things that others will perceive to be lies because they contradict earlier pathological lies from the same person. Which leads someone like LaRouche to say things that are "moronic,", "lunatic," "nuts", etc., without him actually being a "moron" in terms of describing his native intelligence.


Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 9:19 am:

I Remember Riemann

A few comments on LaRouche's latest memo.

Recently, an associate has raised, repeatedly, the assertion that my current policies on the subjects of Marxian economy and Roosevelt have changed, that almost axiomatically, over the course of the recent three-and-a-

(Don't you wonder who that associate is? It goes without saying that whoever it is, is right—no yute would know this, but any Baby Boomer who ever read The Conceptual History of the Labor Committees, Dialectical Economics, Philosophy of Socialist Education, or any one of a million other such productions, knows that the associate has it nailed on Marx, and any of us who in the "recent" 3.5 decades heard LaRouche denounce FDR as a Mussolini socialist knows that story too.)

To provide the message needed to quell the idle speculation about my supposed change of views on these matters, the following small piece is placed on our record.

(Well, that should work. Whatever else it does, this small piece changes the subject by diverting all attention to the present mental state of LHL. Forget the recent 3.5 decades, folks, what's been going on in the recent 3.5 days?)

My outlook has not changed in any essentials, on either Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or principles of economy, since the developments of the 1946-1953 interval.

(Except that I used to think FDR was a Mussolini-style fascist, a corporatist, but now I think he's me, and I'm he, and he's God.)

Take the case of Molly Kronberg. Some people were shocked by the evidence, from the public record, that she had gone over to the political enemy. Why? I was already aware of this by about 1990.

(Hmmm. If LaRouche was aware of this by 1990, why was Kronberg still editing New Federalist till it died in 2006, and why was she on the National Committee until the recent alpha access debacle? For all I know, maybe she is still on the National Committee….



Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 9:22 am:

(Let's think about this. LaRouche threw Ed Spannaus off the NEC and NC in summer 2006 for writing a headline on a pamphlet that Ed didn't write—and despite everyone's protestations that Ed hadn't written it.

(So why was Molly Kronberg on the NC all those years, if her "perfervid" devotion to the "Brutish" was known to LHL?

(Here's what's interesting in the phrase "about 1990"—the year of interest is actually 1989, and what happened that year—as LaRouche knows too well—is the New York trial, and what happened in that trial is that defendant Kronberg made a motion to sever her case from the other defendants on the grounds that she did not want LaRouche to testify for the defense, and LaRouche and his claque went crazy denouncing her as a traitor blah blah, and so 1989 was the year that you could say LaRouche and Kronberg had their definitive and mildly dramatic break.)

If the evidence were overlooked, her perfervid
devotion to ways and things Brutish marked her as the wife of a loyal member who had gone over to intellectual affiliation with the enemy cause.

(Loyal member? Loyal member?!?! Are we talking about Ken Kronberg here—the man who almost single-handedly ruined the organization by his "management fantasies," supposed refusals to believe LaRouche's forecasts, ill-advised "investment" decisions? Are we talking about the man who scammed the organization?? Are we talking about the man who ran the print shop that, according to the April 11 morning briefing, was "the worst"? Are we talking about the man who went to the Straussian hotbed of St. John's? That academic who didn't understand Shakespeare? Same guy??)

Every time I spoke unfavorably of our republic's principal long-term foe, the "Brutish Empire," Molly would slam her books on the floor and storm out….

(Which books were those? Does anyone who knows Molly Kronberg think she would leave any books of hers behind "on the floor"? If you can remember a single occasion on which you saw Molly Kronberg slam her books on the floor and "storm out" of somewhere or other—where was that again?—when LaRouche spoke, please email me the details at the address I provide below.)

…As Linda de Hoyos, and Uwe Friesecke had done with the scheme he unleashed on the instant he knew I was being shipped to a prison from which he was confident I would not return alive.

(What scheme? "He was confident I would not return alive"—what a canard! Some of us who suspected LaRouche was not the most important man in the world were pretty sure he would be safe as houses in Federal prison, but Uwe wasn't one of those. Uwe was doing everything he could to preserve and protect all of LaRouche's effects, even those stupid cows….)



Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 9:37 am:

Or take the case of those departed souls, such as the bunch who were not only taken in by the Winstar scam, an outright scam, in even its bare conception, from the outset, but adopted change
in moral and practical expressions of a pilosophical world-outlook contrary to the standpoint of my life's work in our association. They were typical of those who, out of cowardice,
reacted to the developments of 1984-1989, by surrendering, emotionally and intellectually to the enemy, waving the "white flag of surrender" while shouting to the smiling adversary, "Please, don't shoot us; we and our families need that money!"

(Artful combination of LaRouche's obsession with Windstar, and his obsession with the-–relatively speaking—legions who dropped out during 1984-1989, horrified by developments indeed. Among those developments were the unbridled loan-taking—the Feds said it topped out at $34 million in mostly unpaid loans; also, the Boston credit card grand jury, the deranged lawsuit against NBC [that worked out well], the October 1986 raid and LaRouche's psychotic telegram to President Reagan, the trials, the ravings, the sudden disappearance of the Boston Three on a five-year odyssey as fugitives from justice…. White flag of surrender, my foot! Maybe the dropouts had just decided LaRouche was the worst strategist and tactician they'd ever seen.)

"Lyn is wrong about the economy," was the common expression of this fear-driven apostasy, The ranks of the "Gideon's Army" grew smaller in this way.

(Apostasy. Interesting choice of words, with its principal meaning of abandonment of one's religion. When will God tell LaRouche that LaRouche is not God?)

This problem, as a flight from sane economic outlook into middle-class Baby-Boomer-style fantasy-life, became clear to me in January 1996, at the first general meeting on behalf of my
Presidential election. This sickened state of mind ran rampant through our association through the 2000 collapse of the Y2K bubble.

(LaRouche is referring to a memorable evening on which, to get an audience for a LaRouche speech that was being filmed and turned into a Presidential campaign half-hour TV ad, the Leesburg National Center powers-that-be rounded up a bunch of exhausted members who had already been working for 11 hours or so and herded them over to Alexandria or somewhere to sit in the audience at some hotel while LaRouche spoke.

(The effect was hilarious, as you could see on the subsequent TV ad. The "audience" were nodding, snoozing, staring glazed-eyed—and why not? They were bone-tired. But LaRouche saw the films and immediately threw one of those tiresome tantrums of his, attacking the membership for all sorts of flaws, moral and intellectual, because they dozed off during his speech. And, as with every other slight in his long life, he never got over it, as we see 11 years later.

(Oh, and by "Y2K bubble" he means bubble. He's just confused.)



Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 9:42 am:

I Remember Riemann Cont'd.

It was that state of mind among a significant number of those among and around us, which not only bankrupted PMR virtually by 2000, but had virtually bankrupted our association as a by-product of the loss of the subscription fulfillment (for New Federalist, EIR, and others) which had been our association's chief economic base of continued operations, and "fourth circle"
base of organized political and related support.

(He can't resist. The "loyal member" is getting it in the neck again. Here again we have LaRouche blaming Kronberg for destroying the organization, this time the subscription base. Someone needs to tell LaRouche, as has been mentioned before, that in normal business, the printer is not responsible to pay for the mailing, the customer is. What this shows is that for years—decades—PMR did pay for the mailing, to a great extent unreimbursed. LaRouche just can't cope with the idea of paying for services.

(Now we learn that the sub base was our chief source of income—but how many times have you heard LaRouche explain that subscriptions are liabilities, not assets? The world's greatest economist has slipped a cog again.

(Plus his overuse of the word "virtually" screams out "I'm lying.")

Today, we are faced with the situation among us, that belief in Winstar, in the fantasies of PMR's management, and so on, are already gone or waning among those of us with even the shards of
sanity, but the scars on the mind which formerly habituated illusions have produced, persist. During that period, when those and kindred, misleading fantasies were treated as "inside
knowledge" of the gossip circuits, the outlooks of those victimized by these errant fads were habituated among some as "our traditions," even when those policies themselves were dead.

(Well, yes, the belief in the "fantasies of PMR's management" is gone, because PMR's management is gone. I guess Nancy Spannaus needs to revise her obituary of Ken Kronberg to take out the part about "his role in the physical production of the LaRouche organization's literature—at which he was a genius…." She'd better do it soon, before she finds herself on the cutting-room floor along with hubby Ed, " 'reduced to the rank of buck private' until such time as a different status might be generously bestowed upon him," in LaRouche's memorable words from summer 2006.)

As relevant publications and policies of outreach, from the 1970s on attest, we were always premised on what came to be hated among what are now our former associates in the U.S.A. and Europe, whether the anglophile whores of "Uriah Heep" Friesecke's gang of habituated liars, the "right wingers" from the downward
flow of the left bank of the Rhine, or Fearful Fernando's Fascist Fakers in the U.S.A.

(Say whaaa?)



Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 9:51 am:

I Remember Riemann, Final Installment

Karl Marx's Economics

(To sum up this tortured section, which I omit: Karl Marx was always an agent of British imperialism, kind of like Molly Kronberg. Well, fine, but why on earth was Lyndon LaRouche, the world's greatest etc., a "Marxian" for all those years then? Look it up, kids. In black and white, and Red all over.)

We have ("we" as I typify "we") the best insight into this system of any known person, or persons living today. We also have a method of forecasting, developed uniquely by me, which is
systemically rooted in the method which Bernard Riemann crafted on his principal predecessors, from Cusa and Kepler, through Liebniz, and Riemann. My method of forecasting is systemically
dynamic, whereas all putative rivals, including my foolishly forecasting friends in Leesburg and elsewhere, rely upon statistical-forecasting methods derived from Descartes. Marx was
a neo-Cartesian on this account.

(The best line in the whole thing! We-as-I-typify-we. "We will make man in Our image." Really, Lyn, now that you're 85, isn't a little humility in order?

(Never mind that we have a method crafted by Riemann "on" his predecessors—Cusa, Kepler, Liebniz, and …Riemann? [Hey, what happened to Gauss?] Never mind all the balderdash in this paragraph, because coming up you have…)

The mental map of the universe in which I live, once built, never changes in any essential feature of practice, until the person holding such a map is dead, in one sense or another. Most
people in my time have not shown convincing evidence that they have such a coherent map, although they will, nonetheless,unwittingly, be possessed by one.

(In my world—my rigid, unbending, therefore brittle, impervious, mental economy—no dialogue is possible and no thought is needed—just as well, since it's also not possible. What ever happened to the "Philosopher of Change," as LaRouche has outrageously mischaracterized Plato? What ever happened to process, to evolution/development, to dynamis? Hylozoic monism?

(This is the "mental map" of a disturbed mind characterized by fatal rigidity, a mind already dead in several senses.

(But it's not just him. Unwittingly, the people of "my time" are being possessed by "the mental map of the universe in which I live."

(The solipsist has spoken. What he means to say, pace Descartes, is "I think, therefore I am." The rest of you are merely predicates of my Individual Sovereignty.

(And there I think we will let the matter rest….)

[And for Kronberg-book-throwing sightings, email me at:]


Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 10:22 am:

Wow! This email thing has really paid off already.

Someone just emailed me the hilarious headline and opening lines of the Wednesday morning briefing.... I have boldfaced the fabulous headline, and italicized the wonderful sentence in which LaRouche marvels over the miracle of his birth.

As LaRouchetruth says, you can't make this stuff up.

On a Fateful September Weekend:


With the advent of this September 2007, a recent century has died, and a new millennium is born. What an ironically wonderful 85th Birthday has been delivered to me, thus.

During two decades, twenty years, from the February 1763 Peace of Paris, when the British empire was, in fact, born, until that British East India Company's empire-in-fact conceded the
establishment of the United States of America's independence, in 1783, a certain world order of what became a see-saw conflict between those two English-speaking systems, has dominated the
decisive strategic elements of the history of this entire planet--Etc....


Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 11:39 am:

The rest of you are merely predicates of my Individual Sovereignty.

That's precisely what this monster of narcissism, LaRouche, thinks. Every person on earth past and present has no individuality apart from his or her place in his frigid mental map. That is why he can speak with so much seeming authority, because he's just addressing some part of himself. The real which is to say the contingent world would scare the bejesus out of this little freak. And I do aver that he is more on the moronic end of the intelligence spectrum than the opposite. He just happens to have an associative talent which allows him to sponge up a wad of data, animate it all with his craziness, and then link it all together with his crazy glue.

The more distance I gain from the cult (and the more I recover from its distortions of my mind and personality), the more difficult it becomes to imagine otherwise intelligent people subjugating themselves to this madman - unless of course they can't get their hand out of the cookie jar, like Der Helga.

(Message edited by sancho on September 12, 2007)

Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on July 24, 2012, at 03:13 AM