SEARCH

edit SideBar

Correspondence: LaRouche and Dino De Paoli

 FROM:LAR       " Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. "
 CC:HZL
 SUBJ: re: Tillman
 10:36 AM 11/30/2006 EST

 On the subject of your reckless babbling of wild- eyed gossip:

 For some who might be would-be Irishmen, kissing  Uwe's butt
 serves as a substitute for the Blarney  Stone. My recommendation
 to you is: brush your teeth more often;what has sometimes gushed

 from your reckless mouth of late, should be expected to  leave a

 very foul taste behind.

 You have had some tough times; whether harsher or less harsh than
 I and others have endured, could be debated, were such
 comparisons of any use in the skein of things. The practical fact
 is, that with better management of the Erbenheim office, things
 might go better for you, but that would mean that our enemies
 would probably be even more hateful to you personally than even
 the afflictions you suffer under Uwe's depoliticized
 mis-management (or,is it not, after, the form of  "miss
 management which goes with his mental affliction?).

 TO: ANNO H.

 Traitor!

 A well-known English wit, Pope, wrote what he presented as a
 message written on a dog's caller:

 "I am my master's dog from Pew; Pray sir, and whose dog are
 you?"


 FROM:LAR       " Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. "
 CC:HZL
 SUBJ:REPLIES TO E-MAIL
 5:30 PM 8/5/2006  EDT

 -------------------------------------------------------- TO: DINO

 Your claim to have confronted me on truth is your lie.   It was you who
 lied, by persisting, still today, in your  fully witting, fraudulent
 fallacy of composition, about  the matter to which you referred.

         At that meeting, you took one fact from Spring of  1989, with
 the expressed intent to present it in a form  which misrepresented the
 issue of 1989 letter, which had  been, at that time, Ed Spannaus' role
 as an enemy of me  and of Helga from inside the association. Your
 reference to the 1989 letter was explicitly fraudulent; it was done by
 you as your failed attempt to deny the reality of avowed  fascist
 Fernando coming out of the closet in September 1990, together with
 man-turned-whore Webster Tarpley. You engaged in this fraudulent
 representation of the matter of the Spring 1989 letter, as part of your
 own and Renate's continuing defense of Uwe Friesecke's attempted
 cover-up  of the  influence of the fascist scoundrel Fernando.

         As you know, I am certain, Uwe is, at last report, definitely
 not a spokesman for the Catholic confession, Therefore, Uwe's de facto
 defense of the fascist, non- Christian, Synarchist and Nazi elements of
 the Catholic Church, notably in Pinochet's Chile and elsewhere, might 
 be
 a mystery, unless we might discover that Uwe was in a  pact with other
 members who were in some way sympathetic  to the fascist circles of
 William F. Buckley et al. in  the U.S.A., Mexico, et al. Uwe's own
 motivation in the  issue  of the meeting at which you spoke,
 fraudulently,  of the letter, remains undecided,apart from the fact
 that was the only issue, of Uwe's attempted cover-up of the continuing
 Fernando problem, which had prompted that  meeting. You broke open the
 discussion at that meeting  with your fraudulently diversionary
 reference to "the  letter," and your childish picture of the
 significance  of the role of  poor Paul Goldstein in any of the leading
 issues within Leesburg and related areas during the 1989- 1990 interval
 or beyond.  At that time, Paul was a relevant  issue only as he leaned
 toward support for Ed Spannaus in  common cause against Helga.

         As you know, unless your memory were more severely damaged than
 I could imagine, that what Fernando was in bed with was no mere
 Archbishop Lefebvre, but hard-core Nazism, or things comparable, inside
 the Church. Any attempted cover-up of Fernando's Nazi and related
 connections, represents an existential threat to the very existence of
 our association,and is evidence  supporting summary expulsion of any
 associate who attempts to defend Fernando's role from September 1990 to
 the present date. Nonetheless, you did lend aid to an attempted 
 cover-up
 of this fact, by the fraudulent character of your introduction, and
 flagrant misrepresentation of the irrelevant matter of "the letter."

         Thus, we must conclude the following:

         The issue of the meetings in which you were a  factor, was on
 the subject of Fernando as an avowed  fascist; you intervened with a
 conscious lie in fact, by insisting on what was in fact a defense of
 Fernando, by implying that the September 1990 matter not be taken in
 account in my charges against Uwe's cover-up of fascist Fernando. You
 reference to the letter was therefore fraudulent, and intentionally so.
 Thus, you lied, and, according to your current message,  are lying
 still.  How could you debate issues of truth, when the power of
 truth-telling appears to have departed from your repertoire some years
 past.

         I concede, and conceded then, at a subsequent  meeting,  that,
 to your credit, as I credited you at that time,your discussion of the
 role of some of Fernando's  fascist cronies at the conference in Mexico
 was truthful  and useful. There, you did not lie; but you are still
 lying about the matter you treated in your first attempted,  fraudulent
 use of reference to the irrelevant matter of  the letter of 1989, a
 letter which involved, as Renate knew at the time, Ed Spannaus's fully
 willful wrecking of  the legal defense at the Alexandria trial, and his
 continuing focus against Helga during the period I was  sitting in the
 Arlington jail, where the meeting with my  counsel and Renate occurred.

 Renate, who probably instigated your first intervention on this count,
 is the more relevant culprit in this  affair; your role in the matter
 was, and, I assume, remains, as her accomplice, or should I say, out of
 my great kindess for memory of your better days, her  donkey.

 Dino, you are still lying.  I am deeply ashamed of what you, who used 
 to
 be a talented human being, have  turned out to become.


 --Lyndon.

 ---------------------------------------- IN REPLY TO: Hannover  7.11.06



 To: Larouche and the ICLC membership.


 As known to many, I confronted you personally on the issue of truth. 
 You
 had the possibility to defend yourself in that occasion, you did not.
 Since then, you have tried pathetically to cover your own behind, to
 cultivate a myth about God-Larouche believed by fewer and fewer. I
 decided that it was no more worth to try to have serious discussions
 inside the organization, but in the meantime your disgusting cowardness
 has forced me to face you again. Like a neapolitan witch, you think 
 that
 if you do not name someone, that person will die, but witchcraft and
 tarot, as you know is fakery.  Your attempt to direct your hate towards
 Renate, with a language worth of homosexuals fighting in a Parisian
 bistro, forces me  to challenge you again. Lets have a debate, with
 equal time ( not your usual cabaret) on the history of the 
 organization,
 your private life  and everything else you want. I hope there are still
 members who are interested to know the truth and  given your famous
 courage when faced personally or your lack of fear when "a light goes
 off in a room", I expect you will accept my challenge to you.

 Dino De Paoli
Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on November 05, 2012, at 01:06 PM