SEARCH

edit SideBar

FACTNET.ORG FORUM: The very long thread continued

< FACTNET.ORG FORUM: Updates What is going on in the World of Larouche Today | FACTNET.ORG FORUM | FACTNET.ORG FORUM: LaRouche - Page 1 >

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-08-2005, 11:39 AM
Dear Mr. Rendon,
I think we're at a loss until we address internet mordacity in general, which tends to increase in proportion to the personal gravity of the issues being discussed. I will waffle on a bit here, but don't take that as my typical desire in corresponding with you, as I have not encountered your question before, and indeed have never even thought about it outside of petty tactical considerations, such as the basic rule of not responding to bad faith, unless for curiosity or parting riposte.
Let me go back to a notion I mentioned earlier. To my understanding, an acting human is an individual cognitive process. An effectively acting human is such a process harmonised with an individual organism, via the neural network. In a latent human, the cognitive process is subsumed to the result of the action of neural impulses translated into sensation and interpretation, which trigger emotions to which the mind responds, seeking to defend its most reliable ego-state against disintegration.
Online, typically the concept of "good faith" is dim at best. I think this has to do with a deep unwillingness to achieve distance from what is being debated. Like threads that are endless rounds of postmodern comedian posturing, the emotional engagement itself is attractive to the arguer, as vice. To use an easy example, one need only advocate for, say, white people as a distinct interest group, in a typical flamingly liberal forum, or others, to demonstrate just how much people enjoy frothing at the mouth and inventing imaginative execrations for their enemies.
Now, take this impulse further. Take the online anti-racists, for instance. These are people who are so, out of fashion. A hundred years ago they'd be racists instead. So at worst, there, we're dealing with witty, crafty people, but with no radical boldness. Take the impulse to its extreme. These people, the bad-faith types, are implicitly a preconsciously-oriented, potential screaming, witch-burning mob. So long as the winds of fashion hold, they'll talk a good show about morality, and how X is evil, and so forth, but at the heart of it, they want of you what a fish wants of a naked body floating in the harbour.
Enter now, the suggestion of becoming an active human. This implies, to such a person, mental slavery and torture. It implies an absolute inversion of what they're looking for. This is what happened to Frank, the hedonist, in Hellraiser I – his search for sexual ecstasy led him to places he did not want to be, places he would do absolutely anything to escape from. A bit of a paradox now, perhaps.
That is, in an /activating/ human mind, the person seeks to shift from a neuron-dictated response, to an idea-dictated one. Dead reckoning faith is traded for a gaze up at at least a few telling stars. But this shift to cognition is doubly painful, for first, it seeks that "blessed condition" of agape, and second, the emotions are mortified through discipline.
So, BDSM. The flesh may be punctured, cut, bound, whipped, and so on, within the limits of the play, but the goal is an intense emotional state, a state of rigor, at least, in the service of whatever relationship is at hand, whether loveless or profound. This is no different from the sexual intensity created by Moslem and Orthodox Jewish cultures where women's hair is hidden to all but their husbands. The Nazi uniforms also served a similar purpose – it is no mistake that the same uniforms used by the best fighters in modern history, are now signatures of the fetish scene.
Becoming a human means submitting to mental BDSM. Willing to learn to enjoy, on some level, the pain of deflecting, transforming, exposing, and commanding the emotions arising both spontaneously, and in response to those sensations and interpretations required by a dedication to gaining and using knowledge - not pain for pain's sake, but for the sake of retraining those emotions to serve your cognitive will, instead of that of the flesh. We might borrow Dr. John Lilly's term and call it programming the human biocomputer.
In small-scale organising, anywhere, then, we might benefit from keeping the above in mind. These are kinky things we're dealing with. I think that is the fate that the young Mr. Duggan met with – he got freaked out. These things can get inside your head and take on a certain life of their own, as perhaps you know. They can tear you between two modes of being, provoke reactionary outbursts of loud emotion, and prod you to adopt a technically efficient, but dishonest mask of knowledgeability in order to score points for the team. And, in extreme cases of personalised stress, they can boot up defense mechanisms, including witchcraft, that can tip a by-now dead-reckoning consciousness onto a trajectory of disaster.
This is why the use of dirty tricks in organising is dangerous. As one of the recent lecturers had it (Schlanger, I think), beware non-scientific methods [of, we might say, "composing" the person in question]. Otherwise, I think we might be planting a seed of potential violent decomposition later. The same might go for the reported instances of overly rigourous movement regimens.
Now, when we're dealing with someone who has started off as a child, developed N worldviews through adolescence and young adulthood, been recruited to the above, and who not only burned out but freaked out, returning to one of the N worldviews previous, I think we can safely say we're dealing with a kind of existentialist nausea. An understandable, "I've had enough of changing my mind! I quit!" This is the same as has been created through the postmodern condition of cultural upheaval and disorientation, in the face of the present pan-alien invasion of the West. No doubt Oriental cultures feel it too, but not to the same degree as we, because they can always just turn off their television sets. We have been locked into a "culture of critique" that is liquidating all standards in favour of perpetual dissonance and the postmodern irony it generates. Even the movement cannot remedy this fully, and has yet to address it – Mr. LaRouche writes in one essay of how we are headed for eternal strife /if/ he succeeds.
The postmodern condition has taught us that the ego is a mask, shaped to create appropriate emotional performances. We are all men of a hundred faces, most of which mismatch our emotions, and so a belief endures that we have a "true self" somewhere, that is our natural animal ego. But of course there is no such true self, on that level. What people strive to express, is the animal version of their unique human mind. In other words, the animal ego behaviour, is a shadow of their mind's intent, through the warping glass of arbitrary ego. "Self discovery" on this level is at best a process of decreasingly imperfect expression of that warped, but nevertheless authentic, intent, down to a glass floor of certain best-guess personal axioms. On the higher level: rather than a predefined ego, the unique mind can choose certain interests to pursue, hopefully increasingly suited to its best talents and highest perspective, around which an ego draws like iron filings to a magnet.
BDSM, and other sexual roleplaying, allows a shift from one set of masks and emotional performances, to another. The participants (a cognitive or near-cognitive couple, say), seek that ideal harmonic resonance with each other, where the each becomes as fully as possible a unique and uniquely intense loving metaphor to the other. Sexual variety ultimately expresses a desire for unity - except in those rare cases of demonism – and is the search for the ideal metaphor through the exhaustion of non-ideal ones – at best a process of "fun" in the LaRouchian sense, though perhaps not quite something he had in mind.
In the intersection of BDSM, nausea, and bad faith's undertow, we find that we're dealing with a kind of demonic tendency that is resisting the metaphorical demands of the higher, and seeking instead to enact those demands literally upon the lower. In Mr. Curtis' case, from what I can tell, his indignation, nausea, revulsion, and vice-impulse have combined with a mild predilection for dishonesty, to build a defiladed enceinte guarding against any possible participation in objective discussions with you. A certain "mental off-switch," akin to the faith loop that Born Again bibliolaters fall into, prevents engagement.
What is missing, like in most "flame warriors," is an ability to role-play one's position /sincerely/, without knocking the pieces off the board. They almost always succumb to the compelling urge to "connect the circuit" and hook their mind into the mask. They obey the feminine currents swelling within their breast, the clawing defense of "the precious," instead of hesitating to check the position of the stars before reacting with passion and politeness. There is a time for snarling masks, scary masks, but such a public forum is not it.
It's very difficult to find people who are so guided. On the other hand, it is very easy to find someone who isn't. Just drop a few witch-trigger words like "Jew," "negro," "holocaust," and the like, and watch that nictitating membrane pull back.
So, with the antagonists, we will have some difficulty! They are not interested in ideas, which disposes for them of the entire body of historical human inquiry. Because of this, separating for them the ideas behind the movement, from the activity of the movement, is impossible. And as I have shown, inquiring about the foundations of their moral outrage, leads to the glass floor of mysticism. What profit debate, then?
DH

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
11-08-2005, 01:06 PM
Dear Mr. Borracho,
Indeed, your hypothesis on mining existing culture is aptly demonstrated.
Actually, I have recently been entertaining such thoughts, concerning my adolescent predilection for so-called underground hip hop, particularly the works by Digable Planets, Tribe Called Quest, Pharcyde, Mos Def and Talib Kweli, et al. Many of these artists had a crucial importance on my early development, if for nothing else its emphasis on individual development and resistance to many nasty currents of what they call "sell out," self-seeking entertainment.
However, after studying under Mr. LaRouche, I cannot help being annoyed by the repetitive baseline and lack of deeper philosophical discussion.
Also, I contemplated creating a quasi-movement that addresses, dissects, and critiques these forms of popular entertainment, song after song, showing its errors, and jumping off to create new ideas of art. I know I could have quite a fun time critiquing some of Eminem's repertoire.
We should discuss this further.
On the account of the antagonist question. I follow your (at times quite frankly hilarious) discussion of BDSM, of the neuron-driven type versus the idea-driven type. The metaphor of using this BDSM to "educate one's emotions," in the F. Schiller sense, is somewhat of a mission impossible on this message board, at least a more daunting task depending on how already educated one's emotions are.
Now about school. At university, I experience a similar, although not quite as vicious, problem in attempting to have ideas dictate my investigations of the given topic in a given course. This has proven to be the case in every single course, in every subject I have taken, whether originating directly from the professor or from his chosen curricula.
Am I doomed to spend the rest of my tenure at university in this sad state of affairs, or is there some type of specific method I can employ in combating the onslaught from seemingly all sides? Is that specific action simply joining the LYM, or at least maintaining an active alliance? Is immersing one's self in the classical culture of the LYM the best method of conducting idea-driven BDSM? What then of university?
This question may help the genuine onlookers here, especially if one has been duped into worrying about this cult-nonsense, be one parent or recruit.
Respectfully,
Steven
P.S. I appreciate your formal respect, but Mr. Rendon is my father's name.
Also, at some point, I would very much appreciate a more personal correspondence. Again, my email is steven.rendon@yale.edu.

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-09-2005, 08:11 PM
Dear Steven,
I'll soon be studying poetry etc. with a fellow, and this is what I'll use to introduce her to the need for solid foundations.
Ozymandias
By Percy Bysshe Shelley (1817)
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert … Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
So, what are you trying to accomplish at school, exactly?
DH

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
11-10-2005, 08:39 AM
Dear Mr. Borracho,
"So, what are you trying to accomplish at school, exactly?"
My short answer, in the negative, is to avoid sophistry. My other short answer, in the positive, is to develop the creative powers of my mind and to, simultaneously, begin assuming the responsibility of continuing the process of creation. This should be discussed in more depth.
U.S. News' website records how various colleges answer the same question, in the form of a mission statement. Let's compare Catholic University of America's mission statement to Yale's, as a case study. Which one relies on tradition and auctoritas (i.e. awards and long-winded salesmanship), and which one invokes a Socratic method that integrates truth and reason, i.e. Leibnizian creativity?
And thirdly, I pasted below an excerpt of Mr. LaRouche's recent paper, "The Present Dark Age in Education," where he seems to begin to answer a similar question.
I cannot help but to most appreciate Mr. LaRouche's thorough and truthful answer. At least, it seems most consistent with what I think a Classical Humanist education should consist of.
Thoughts?
Respectfully,
Steven
Catholic University of America's School Mission
(Data appear as originally submitted by this school)
The mission of The Catholic University of America is to discover, preserve and impart truth in all its forms through scholarship, research and teaching so as to serve the needs of society, the nation and the Church. As a university, it has a responsibility to seek the truth with singular determination and to be an intellectual center of the highest quality. As a Catholic university, it is a place where the relation between revealed truth and human truth is examined in depth and with authority. The University is comprehensive in the scope of its academic disciplines and fosters an academic culture that gives primacy in its educational programs to the integration of Catholic values and fundamental scholarship as well as to the examination of the relationship between faith and reason. The Catholic University of America is convinced that faith is consistent with reason and that theology and other religious studies themselves profit from the broader context of purposeful critical inquiry, experimentation and reflection. As a community of service, the University makes an indispensable contribution to the Church, to society at large and to the local community.
Yale's School Mission
(Data appear as originally submitted by this school)
Yale is both a small college and a large research university. The College is surrounded by eleven distinguished graduate and professional schools, and its students partake in the intellectual stimulation and excitement of a major international center of learning. The faculty is known for its special devotion to undergraduate teaching. Many of Yale's most distinguished senior professors teach introductory courses as well as advanced seminars to undergraduates. Faculty members are accessible to students and take a great deal of interest in working closely with undergraduates. Yale's curriculum allows students to achieve both breadth and specialization across several disciplines. Students are expected to explore three important areas of knowledge - the arts and humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences - even as they probe the depth of a major field. While exploring several subject areas, students are also expected to sharpen their writing, quantitative, and foreign language skills. Yale's unique residential college system organizes the student body into twelve small and intimate communities. Students are affiliated with the same residential college throughout their four years at Yale and beyond. As members of a residential college, students experience the living situation of a small school while still enjoying the cultural and scholarly resources of a large university. In assigning students to residential colleges, Yale seeks to create a microcosm of the larger community within each college, capturing the true diversity of the larger student population. Each residential college is a community where students live, eat, socialize, and pursue academic and extracurricular activities. Yale students are actively involved in the New Haven community, benefiting from and enhancing the city's many cultural, recreational, and political opportunities. New Haven boasts diverse and abundant resources in the arts. There is a vibrant cultural and artistic life there, a myriad of opportunities both academic and social, and a plethora of places to eat and have fun. New Haven is part of a Yale education: the experience of contemporary urban life broadens students' perspectives and helps prepare them for life after college. Yale students have a long tradition of intense involvement with extracurricular activity. Life at Yale College provides endless opportunities for students beyond the classroom. Opportunities in theater, music, volunteer service, politics and government, publications, and athletics enrich the undergraduate curriculum and endow Yale College with a special energy and spirit of commitment. Perhaps the first thing that students notice about their college is the caliber of the people. There are talented artists, student government leaders, star athletes, passionate activists, award-winning poets, prize-winning scientists, and people who are just simply "well-rounded. " Because Yale students come from such a wide range of ethnic, religious, cultural, geographic and socioeconomic backgrounds, there is a remarkable exchange of ideas. Yale is a major research university that focuses primarily on undergraduate education and encourages students to become energetic citizens of their communities, the nation, and the world.
LYM's mission:
"The youth movement admits young adults of between the ages of 18 and 25. Some of the veterans when past the age of 25 remain for a while in the role of both leaders and training cadre. The program of activities features three principal elements. What is most apparent to observers of that youth movement's public activities, is the movement's role as a political mobilizing force within society generally. That occupies approximately between half and two-thirds of the activity, especially in the midst of political-campaign deployments which include educational product developed as research results of the work, such as economic research, of the youth themselves. The core of the remainder of the activity, is in an historical approach to mastering the underlying, systemic principles which are at the foundations of Classical physical science and Classical well-tempered choral singing. The latter, singing in the modern Classical mode of J.S. Bach, has been chosen, together with the work on the elementary foundations of physical science, as the most characteristic feature of the contributions of the Classical mode in European culture since Thales, Solon, and the Pythagoreans, to civilization as a whole.
The roots of this youth movement can be traced implicitly to the role of the Pythagoreans as a teaching organization and center of scientific development, to Socrates at Athens, and to movements from which the modern university's best models emerged, such as Peter Ab้lard's fight against reactionary obscurantism, and the seminal influence of the Brothers of the Common Life during a period from the late Fourteenth Century until the order's suppression by the Habsburg- and Venice-led resurgent forces of obscurantism and religious warfare in Europe during the Sixteenth Century. It was, perhaps curiously, but not accidentally, the root of the birth of Massachusetts' Harvard University under the leadership of the Winthrops and Mathers, a development which was of leading importance in laying the foundations of the U.S. republic.
These ancient, medieval, and modern European precedents are among those to be held prominently in view in assessing the necessary mission of young-adult movements of kindred spirit and intention, launched to meet the special challenge this crisis has presented to us today.
A summary sampling of the policy governing the programs in physical science and music, will introduce the reader to a sense of the educational program overall."

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-10-2005, 08:45 PM
Dear Steven,
I fear I am not well developed enough myself to usefully comment on your situation, but I shall try anyway.
I assume that you try to work with others in developing your mind. Working wholly alone strikes me as very hard, for what is a better aid allowing and forcing one to focus one's thoughts, than a reflective student? Finding one or more people you can get together with to figure out a few basics about reality, seems useful both to you and to them. But beyond this, up against a crowd, in a classroom or a bar, engagement is only useful for sharpening one's debating skills. Any points you score will be sucked away by the currents.
In attempting to avoid sophistry, I have to recognise that my vehicle for exploring higher ground is running on a small amount of knowledge mixed with several strong but sometimes contradictory hypotheses, leading to a lot of choking sounds coming from my logic engine. Thus, I don't overdo my excursions. Ever see the movie Kilijmanjaro, where the two guys in the truck break down in the middle of nowhere, and one looks and sees millions of starving baboons pouring down the mountainside in the distance, coming towards them?
On the university summaries, well, it's easier for me if I use humour. I'll haul out the AK74 and see if I can hit something.

  • * *
    (On your summaries: In a unified society, universities might get away with mission statements like the first two ones you listed. But we're not unified, so I've taken the liberty of translating them to how they read to me.)
    Catholic University of America's School Mission
    Translation: We're into Truth, because Truth helps America. We really mean it. We also think that those stoned guys thousands of years ago who saw things and heard voices, have a relationship with Truth. We like to think about that a lot. By the way, we're good dudes, we're like Oat Bran for society - helping it work things out.
    Yale's School Mission
    Translation: We're not into Truth, but man, are we vibrant. We have many types of people so you'll never want for arguments or exotic dates, accessible professors who are so into you, and a general social arrangement that makes you feel cozy and refreshed all at once. And, there's a party town for you to get wasted in. Don't forget to study those three completely sovereign domains of knowledge, so you can make a difference. We are like better-researched Oat Bran, without the cancer-causing additives like so-called vitamin T.
    LYM's mission
    Translation: We're into truth, and you're not going to like it. Understanding what we're talking about, involves grasping the zigs and zags of very subtle arguments referencing a pile of people cooler than you. Most of your time will be spent doing political things, which probably means arguing, picketing, pamphleteering, and singing. The rest of your time will be spent trying to grasp those zigs and zags. We think something is specifically wrong with world, and we're trying to remedy that. Just think of us as social penicillin … using a horse needle.
  • * *
    Perhaps I have answered poorly. I just don't see much of a different to be had from one university to the next, except maybe in, as Yale suggests, the quality of people attending – but even then, who knows? I'd like to see something like the LYM except as a series of pay-as-you-can teaching centres around the country. I wish Mr. LaRouche would hurry up and start the religious phase of his cult so he can rustle up enough money to build them.
    DH
 

erin_b (erin_b)
11-12-2005, 05:02 PM
Two years ago, I was already sickened by this bull, so I'll spare myself the torture of reading all these posts. LaRouchies never listened to me. Why should I pay any more attention to them?
I will just say that any kind of BDSM without someone's consent is going to cause problems. Not everyone likes that. Without consent, it's more of a kind of mental rape.
I hate you.
Erin

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-12-2005, 05:59 PM
Dear Erin B,
I'm not sure why you hate /me/, per se. I'm not advocating unconsenting mental discipline.
But, in the real world the two exceptions end up being, of course, childrearing and warfighting. Children have their childishness torn out of them all the time without their consent - we're just so used to the notion as being necessary, we shrug off critique.
And of course in war, a soldier suffering PTS or the like will very likely be shouted or otherwise abused or shamed back into line. A weak soldier is by definition a bad soldier, to an army.
That's why I wouldn't join the movement: It's a full-time job in a civilian army, that treats its junior members as cognitive children.
DH

 

erin_b (erin_b)
11-13-2005, 11:22 AM
You are advocating the "orgainzing" tactics of the LaRouche Youth Movement. You are advocating unconsenting mental discipline.
I know I never agreed to be "mentally" tied to the bedpost and spanked by any member of the LYM, but they did it anyway.
And let's not forget the spiritual aspect of it.
The LYM is a mass if incredibly sick people, aciting out their sick desires to control and hurt others under the guise of an extremely questionable political ideology.
To voluntarily give or receive any kind of pain is sick. You have actually stated a very good comparison with BDSM and the "organizing".
<children>
In that case, may each person in the LYM who is doing this to people thinking they're doing a favor to the "child" who "needs to have the childishness torn out of them" by suffering at the hands of their organizing, which is really a lot of mental torture done by a bunch of sadists--you said it yourself--may they all someday suffer that kind of humiliation at the hands of someone else, not know what the hell is going on, and know for themselves how I and the rest of their victims feel.
Physical pain is the body's way of letting the person know that the body is getting hurt and needs to pull their hand out of the fire. There are people who burn themselves intentially or have someone else burn them because they get off on it. That is basically what you're talking about when you say BDSM. I'm not one of these people. I was there because I was under the mistaken assumption that I was with people who meant well and had real intentions of changing the world and makign it a better place. Hurting people has nothing to do with what Ghandi or Martin Luther King did, so if you like hurting people, I suggets you stop comaring your leader to people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King, and throw the Frederick Douglass story out of your cirriculum altogether because it has nothing to do with what the LYM does.
Of course, you can't effectively play the kind of games that satisfy the sick desires of LYM-ers if you're just going to be upfront and tell your victims your screwing them.
I did not sign up to be a "soldier". I was duped in to believing this was a political organization for a candidate for President running in the Democratic party like a lot of people were. This is an organization that claims to be opposed to the way the military trains people. Why would you now compare the organizing to the same thing as if it's ok?
"Children have the childishness torn out of them without their consent all the time."
I am not a child and neither are any of the other victims--(actially some of them are) and members of the org are not my parents or even my shrink. When were adoption papers signed? It's a little silly considering I'm 30 years old, but what right do they have? If there is some, I'd really like to see proof.
I don't hate you. I hate what happened to me when I did not know what I was getting into.
I hate Steve for lying to me and telling me he was an "ex-member" when he is obvously too devoted to LaRouche to care what happened to me and to many others.
Steve thinks that all this garbage he posts, all the literature, all the tired old LYM arguments about philosophy, economics, this and that justify hurting people.
You may be able to technically say you're not members. But you both seem to think hurting people in the name of LaRouche is ok.
Erin

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-13-2005, 06:08 PM
Dear Erin B,
As with Westerners tolerating the thousands of people killed by automobiles annually, the LYM simply views people like you as acceptable losses.
They've probably decided that informing potential recruits of what they're in for, would either scare people away, or fail to get them inspired about the ideas, however questionable those may be. They'd reason that they'll gain more solid recruits at the end of the day by downplaying the harshness, even after casualties. So it's a tradeoff. I mean, try recruiting for the Iraq War by showing people photographs of exploded limbs and brain-damaged vets. Instead, you try to make service sound thrilling and patriotic, right? So, in a sense, they're both guilty of false advertising – but that's a trick that's as old as rouge.
But the movement goes further than this, and I think it's a mistake not to consider their ultimate goals. Now, calling them "Fascist," "Nazi," etc., misses the mark. They are /totalitarians/, for truth is totalitarian, and so anything untruthful (i.e. un-Classical) is necessarily vice. I have read nothing from them – and I've read a lot – to suggest that, once in power, they won't engage in an economic and cultural revolution that will make America look like Talibanic Afghanistan, except with rocket ships and German poets. Given their espoused aims, here is a list of things you can expect will be illegal in Neo-Renaissance America:
Recreational Drugs (alcohol, tobacco)
Entheogens (Native American Church peyote use will be shut down)
Virtually all music ever composed
Virtually every book ever written
Virtually every play ever written
Virtually every film ever made
Virtually every tv show ever made
Comic books
Virtually all posters and other images (you didn't think porn would survive, did you?)
Virtually all paintings ever painted
Virtually all sculpture ever sculpted
Dungeons & Dragons
Board games
Miniature games (after H.G. Wells' "Little Wars")
Bubblegum (concentrates the mind on oral infantilism)
Sports (high school, post-secondary, professional)
Hunting
Many sex practices (homosexuality, BDSM, polyamory, sodomy, french kissing?)
Most political demonstrations (goodbye Gay Pride)
Salacious/over-fashionable styles of dress (we'll probably shift to a national uniform)
Many or most types of dancing (when in doubt, try to imagine Lyn doing it)
Tech events (auto racing, tractor pulls, monster truck rallies, demolition derbies)
Animal events (horse racing, greyhound racing, circuses)
Adult events (strip clubs, sex parties, escort services)
Digital watches (I'm not kidding, they screw up your ability to tell time)
Religious practice (Wicca, Satanism, bibliolatry, Gnosticism, Buddhism, Yoga, Shintoism, martial arts-related spirituality, Hallowe'en, Santa Clausian-style Christmas, Thelema, those primitive religions from wherever, etc.)
Private clubs (Hells Angels, Rosicrucians, chess)
Body modification (tattoos, bright hair dye, plastic surgery, non-ear piercings)
Many sweets (excessive sugar content of food helps infantilise the personality)
EVERY videogame ever made
Many pets (what cognitive worth is a cat, for instance? - children must have puppies.)
Many adult hobbies (model trains, knitting, scrapbooking, woodcarving, collecting)
Virtually all toys ever designed (it'll be back to basics like ABC blocks, cooking pot & wooden spoon, bicycles, model space probes, train sets, Baby Barf-Up, and such)
Indoor carpeting (promotes parent-child roughhousing)
In other words, keep in mind that they're not just trying to recruit people into their army. If they win, /everybody/ will be drafted into their army, permanently. LYM hours will become standard for all citizens, whether dedicated to work or specifically authorised forms of leisure. As Harley Schlanger said one time, "You know, sleep is overrated."
As to hurting people, well, all human societies at all times have made allowances for hurting people. Once one has the God's truth on one's side, anything becomes acceptable. In the case of the LYM, I'm still not reassured that the supposed "inalienable rights" of the Bill of Rights, are not abrogable by government invoking the almighty General Welfare clause. In other words, it remains to be argued whether even "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are sacrosanct – Mr. LaRouche's support of the draft is an example of the traditional willingness of a nation-state to kill anyone it needs to, friend or foe, in order to survive. So the LYM are part of a timeless tradition of hurting people for their own good, hardly unique to them.
I hope I've clarified the situation a bit for you.
DH

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
11-13-2005, 06:28 PM
I couldn't disagree more with you on that account, DH.
First, there is no false advertisement. It is no mystery that ideas are sovereign in the LYM. Not tyrannical does and don'ts. For eaxample, nothing is "illegal" in the movement.
I clarify.
Specifically, I have heard, when ever this topic comes up, that in a society dedicated to natural law, we do not need such prohibitive laws. They are simply illegal in a sense that when you do them, you'll probably have someone make fun of you, at most. And then they'll try to engage you in an actual discussion of how people coud spend their time more wisely, promoting ideas.
This simply would not happen, these laws that you suggest would be made. Insanity. Maybe I misunderstood you; that, or you are deeply misunderstanding certain ways of how we treat people in a free society.
Respectfully,
Steven

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
11-13-2005, 09:23 PM
Dear Mr. Borracho,
I think you are still missing the point.
You are ignoring that in a producer society, which is dedicating its educational system on Classical Humanist literature (certainly not banning any literature, but willing to accept simple truthful basics while considering such literature), many of these problems simply will either become extinct or diminish into obscurity by default.
These are hobbies that classically oriented students will simply not waste their time with. I think you may have give Orwell's book 1984 too much credibility in forecasting.
Respectfully,
Steven

 

erin_b (erin_b)
11-13-2005, 10:04 PM
DH,
Your post regarding what the LYM would make illegal is very clear, except you sound like you agree with this projected policy of outlawing human rights.
Steve, of course is delusional and believes the org is capable of no wrong. Steve found factnet under false pretenses and I have a really big problem with him using it as a platform to further harass people who years ago, became sick, sick of LaRouche and with very good reason.
I have a right to be heard. LaRouche has had his chance.
Erin
Steve, I have a very big problem with being called on the phone like that. Just to make sure we understand each other.
Get a clue. This kind of behavior is threatening and scary. I wish you'd shut up and go away.

 

erin_b (erin_b)
11-13-2005, 10:39 PM
"Becoming human means submitting to mental BDSM."
You both agree with this statement.
I feel that if I don't say that it's wrong, no one will.
I said no too many times to count, you sick <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font>.
Erin
This is not "posturing", and this is not my humor, as anyone familiar with humor, mine or otherwise would know.
It was after I got kicked out for thinking for myself that I found out you guys ACTUALLY KILLED SOMEBODY!!!!!!
Now please, do the world a favor and <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> off an die.

 

erin_b (erin_b)
11-13-2005, 11:05 PM
Is any of this getting through to either of you, or to any LYM lurkers on this board, or are you too busy mentally cutting me into pieces while you pleasure yourself?

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-14-2005, 10:46 AM
Dear Steven,
Au contraire, I grasp the point quite well. The point is that the movement is engaged in a war, and is willing to do whatever it takes to win it. If invading Britain and assassinating the Queen would serve their purposes, and they thought it feasible, then they would try it. If murdering Peter McWilliams is the cost of suppressing marijuana, then that's an acceptable loss. And if we have to draft half the country to get killed in a war the administration deems necessary, so be it.
At some hypothetical time in the future, when the enemies have been vanquished, and every student is classically oriented, then, perhaps, bets are off as to what books will be illegal and what will not.
In the meantime, however, the movement has clearly stated its intention to criminalise what it perceives as dangerous, mind-destroying propaganda. How will a movement-led administration /not/ move to protect children by banning various harmful materials, for instance? How can peyote not be wholly banned? How can "films, computer games, and videos glorifying violence" not be banned, as Mrs. LaRouche has strongly advocated?
/Getting/ to a producer society is the problem, one that the movement is quite willing to use criminalisation of vice to accomplish. The more vice available, the less attractive cognition will be to the vast majority of Infernal Americans, so it behooves the Purgatorials and Paradisicals to treat them like what they are – cognitive children – and so ban harmful materials from them. So, we have a for-your-own-good transformation curve.
If you're going to tell me that NRA will allow Cannibal Corpse to play a concert in Central Park, NYC, I've got some phosphorus rights in Nauru to sell you.
DH
Dear Erin B,
Yes, I hear you.
I agree with no policy. But I do think that all genuine acts of creation are accompanied by destruction, that nearly all skill is a result of mental rape, that proper discipline is freedom, and that the movement is led by ruthless and dedicated soldiers who subconsciously accept all of this.
If they win, people like you will probably be put into psychiatric care. Perhaps people like me, too!
DH

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
11-14-2005, 11:12 AM
Dear Mr. Borracho,
You go a bit overboard (for example, giving possibility to the assasination of a head of state, the Q of England and conscious murder of individuals) but, as for the rest, I will have to sit on for a bit, and ponder its relevance. Thank goodness it is a matter of positive law, and today we have the more-straightforward mission of re-establishing principled, Natural Law. But interesting questions, nonetheless; sounds something for the coffee houses and salons to wax on and on about.
Respectfully,
Steven

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
11-14-2005, 11:15 AM
P.S.
A point of clarification:
Mr. LaRouche's advocation of a draft is for educational purposes, particularly for emphasizing the rebuilding pf engineering and general reconstruction capabilities; certainly not to supply a "Soldier and the State" mercenary force of "half the country" to be murdered.

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-14-2005, 04:20 PM
Dear Steven,
As EIR Online described Aug. 2, the movement supports an FDR-style draft for time of war, which very much means some of the draftees will be sent into combat. If one man can be sent to his death so, any number can. I am not saying anything here about the democratic process, sane foreign policy, humanistic training methods, or care taken to minimise casualties, merely that the Republic will do what it needs to do to survive, regardless.
But on Vice, as an addendum, I'm not sure it is such a tertiary question. The proposed social transformation will create, and seek to tighten, a tension in the soul of each citizen, between their vices and their virtues. Since, currently, most people are at best voters who will not be able to tolerate joining the movement wholly, the question becomes how best these inferiors can gradually minimise their vices, to the approved maximum. Whatever the final phase of creating a fully-fledged Renaissance will be like, the transformation toward that seems to beg for a principle of personal asymmetry. I doubt anything could help the LYM more than a new principle of social relation.
DH
P.S.
Regarding medpot, I'm sure you'll agree that conscious murder isn't necessary where policy will do, as shown.

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
11-14-2005, 04:57 PM
Dear Mr. Borracho,
Again, I am not in the least swayed by your ultimate characteristic in saying that "the Republic will do what it needs to do to survive." It is a general statement that needs to be more carefully qualified, or, as it stands, is in danger of provoking the wrong idea.
I explain.
First, Mr. LaRouche has indicated that civilization has entered a phase where general war is unacceptable, for a number of obvious reasons, most too obvious to regurgitate here. So to suggest that "the movement supports an FDR-style draft for time of war, which very much means some of the draftees will be sent into combat" is not historically accurate. And there is no mission to force down the throats of any sovereign government a new Renaissance, as there is the phony pretext of the neo-cons to spread democracy; in the interests of national sovereignty, Saddam Husseins will be tolerated without invasion.
Second, in the case of medpot, the movement ridicules judges who are positivists, who would ignore case by case medical proof of necessity. Simply read any article ridiculing the treatment of the death penalty positivists, who deny innocence because of violated deadlines. With sitting, responsible judges, who are responsive to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," lives will not be put in jeopardy for the sake of legislative bureaucracy.
Third, the most we can demand, in a Democratic-Republic that has turned imperial, is a revolution in direction, not a light speed leap beyond necessary adjustment steps, particularly in education.
Laws that take away free will, moral choice in the minutia (i.e. not stuff like murder) are inherently fascist in intention. I think I am correct in this, but maybe we should get a second opinion from the horses mouth (and I don't mean cutting and splicing out of context, as in bibliolatry.
Respectfully,
Steven

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-14-2005, 08:12 PM
Dear Steven,
I would be nice, but I highly doubt the movement leaders would accept medpot at all, much less sanction properly incorporating it into the medical repertoire, because they see it as a front for the pot legalisation lobby. This, in turn, begs the question of whether marijuana will be legal in the NRA future, for the sake of granting the moral choice you propound. The impression I get is that it /is/ considered tantamount to murder (which the US drug laws reflect), and so I doubt it, also.
Similarly, while it's good that it looks like the current world political-economic situation makes an offensive war unnecessary, and a defensive war unlikely given proper policy, this shouldn't occlude to us the essential willingness of any organism to defend itself against dissolution. It's disingenuous to say that the Republic isn't willing, in principle, to draft men and send them into combat, or equivalent, as needed. I think that combat is safely implied as a perpetual potential, whenever the term "military service" is used, at least for men, especially today with the advent of frontless warfare.
Here is Mr. LaRouche's stated position on the matter:
Campaign 2004: Where They Stand
3. Military Policy: Defense of the Nation In a Time of Global Economic Crisis
http://larouchein2004.net/pages/other/2003/0312wheretheystand_military.htm#larouched
I'll be interested in anything else you can dig up relevant to the principles of transformation and vice suppression in general.
DH

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
11-14-2005, 08:50 PM
Dear Mr. Borracho,
I, living in a largely pot-culture, think that pot should be illegal, for all the reasons you mention and more. However, if indeed what you say is true, that in some cases not having pot would kill someone, and the proper empirical-medical evidence was conclusive and greatly corroborated by leading medical professionals, academics as well as physicians, then it would be grounds for impeachment for any judge who would ignore it; it is my experience that Mr. LaRouche would approve of this, scientific proof that saves a life, at the discretion of the proper place of judgment, that is, a court of natural law.
About the military service. Good, I think we see eye to eye, after that extra clarification.
Anyway, I could use a good citizen-soldier, sense of responsibility for the common defense of my nation-state, be it training in riot-control/defense from violent belligerents or Katrina-esque reconstruction. Couldn't you?
Steven

 

erin_b (erin_b)
11-15-2005, 04:29 PM
"But I do think that all genuine acts of creation are accompanied by destruction, that nearly all skill is a result of mental rape, that proper discipline is freedom, and that the movement is led by ruthless and dedicated soldiers who subconsciously accept all of this."
DH, I hope you don't have any children.
If an organization was worthwhile, it would not have to resort to the tactics you admit to and support.
The first day there, I could see these people clearly had something to hide.
"Everyone says we're a cult. But we're not."
"Everyone says we're anti-semitic, but that's a lie."
Without anyone having said anything.
And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
LaRouche went to prison in the 1980s for several counts of fraud. But to hear them talk, LaRouche didn't do anything to deserve it, except be so damn right all the time.
"They tried to kill him, by putting him in jail...by spreading lies about him."
I asked, "Has anyone ever actually made an attempt on his life?"
"They might have."
In other words, no one tried to kill him. It's just a bunch of hype.
This was only my second day there.
It got worse.
I was thown out after a few months because I didn't start acting like a robot within enough time.
These people who post here who were in for years, some decades know more about this than I do, and they're not in denial about it like you are.
The LYM deleted the stuff I posted on antidummies, after I'd been expelled and had some honest questions about the way they do things. They denied everything and deleted my posts and tried to make me invisible.
Leni Rubenstien told me I could not press charges against Montez Baker for assault because "We are preventing a very possible World War III."
I was too scared to follow through with any legal charges.
The org fills people's heads with all sorts of ideas about what will happen to them if they leave.
I beleived some of it, even though I didn't want to.
This is only one example of what I mean by "mental rape". If you're going to tell me this is a perfectly acceptable way to "teach" or the only way anyone learns anything, I will have to argue against that.
Sorry about all the profanity, really. You're just so full of <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> I can't stand it.
Erin

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-15-2005, 08:03 PM
Dear Steven,
Recreationally, I tend to agree, though I can't without also advocating an increasing suppression of alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol culture is disgusting, and the combined action of it and tobacco use kills over half a million Americans yearly. But even if we're willing to give those people Darwin Awards and shrug them off, we should note that, according to the Denver Post (2004), "Alcohol is a major factor in more than half of all homicides and rapes, 62 percent of assaults, and 30 percent of suicides." So, alcohol is a huge problem that begs addressing, one that we're not addressing, despite the vaunted War on Some Drugs.
Entheogenically, however, I do not agree. The entheogen question is one that the movement considers asked and answered, and they have described themselves as "experts on this stuff." Perhaps, but I have yet to read anything comprehensive and significant by them on it. Recent US administrations' attitudes and policies toward these substances are based on ignorance more than anything else, and that should set off anyone's alarm bells.; e.g. technically, in the US the human brain is illegal, because it contains DMT - a Schedule I substance. So, I can only advocate regulation, here, not prohibition. More things in Heaven and Earth…
A compulsory military service would not only make better citizens, it could teach people how to handle guns safely, how to survive in the wild, and would give them an understanding of the camaraderie and cooperativeness that the military fosters. It might even be good to borrow a page from Heinlein and tie voting rights to military service, exceptions being made for the disabled, fatties, etc..
DH
Dear Erin B,
If you were in a group advocating whatever, defamed by powerful enemies, one of your recruiting tactics might be to preempt such criticism, too.
On plots against Mr. LaRouche, well, I'm sure there are plots against the Queen, too, but you could never prove them, because they're not attempts that have missed, they're intentions that have never found an opportunity. A good sniper won't shoot unless he knows he'll hit his target.
The antidummies forum is a joke, I agree.
On acquiring skill, it all comes down to Arnie pumping iron, "No pain, no gain." A good teacher can help a person come to love what they're learning, to the point where they don't hate the pain anymore, and can minimise it, and perhaps even enjoy the pain somewhat, like someone enjoying hot peppers. But this is what it comes down to, from toilet training up to becoming a doctor; one's old way of thinking gets violated and one forces oneself to think differently, act differently, and that's disturbing and uncomfortable, and almost always the result of persuasion or coercion by others. The hope is that the /best way/ can be found, that gives the student in question both a talent and a passion for the subject in question. Someone who's so blessed, will punish themselves for the sake of the goal and not care, and so is not really suffering.
From what I gather, the movement is rather mentally harsh – the leaders are living inside a mental Valley Forge at all times – so it's no surprise that the troops in the LYM are going shoeless in the snow, so to speak. They grab people, try to give them passion, if that doesn't work, try to smack passion into them, and if that doesn't work, dump them. I imagine they simply don't have the time or the manpower to be gentle about it – the goal is as many halfway competent people on the front as possible, ASAP. So it's easy to see how someone like yourself could get a bit chewed up, and ticked off.
DH

 

kheris (kheris)
11-17-2005, 05:38 PM
They grab people, try to give them passion, if that doesn't work, try to smack passion into them, and if that doesn't work, dump them. I imagine they simply don't have the time or the manpower to be gentle about it – the goal is as many halfway competent people on the front as possible, ASAP.
Passion is not smacked into people, it springs from inside. I feel for Erin; she was subjected to abuse, and there are no mitigating circumstances that can ever justify it.

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-17-2005, 08:04 PM
Dear Kheris,
Not directly, no, but it can provide incentive to dig a little deeper inside oneself for that "spring."
But I've been hearing about these alleged abuse cases for a while now. What exactly does Erin B say happened to her in the LYM?
DH

 

erin_b (erin_b)
11-17-2005, 11:10 PM
"What does Erin B say happened to her in the LYM?"
For starters you could scroll up a couple of posts.

 

erin_b (erin_b)
11-17-2005, 11:45 PM
"First, there is no false advertisement. It is no mystery that ideas are sovereign in the LYM. Not tyrannical does and don'ts. For eaxample, nothing is "illegal" in the movement. "
Bull, bull, bull.
Steve, you obviously have talked to members very little.
"a bit chewed up and ticked off"???!!!!
Have you ever been so angry and afraid you couldn't breathe? That is what the LYM did to me.
You're not going to tell me I would have been so angry I couldn't breathe anyway and it had nothing to do with the LYM any more than anyone in the real world is just going to accept that the LYM had nothing to do with Jeremiah Duggan's mysterious death while attending a Schiller Institute conference in Germany.
You're really stupid to compare what they do to people, to "Arnie pumping iron" which he does by choice and no one forces or coerces him.
I don't know who you are but I've pretty much lost all patience with you.
Real growth does not take place when someone else is trying to shock or frighten you into growing.
Human beings should not hold other human beings captive for the purposes of making them think the same way they do.
I'm sick of you trying to explain things to me when you weren't there and have no idea what really happened. You obviously are some idiot sitting at your computer reading some of the literature and do not know what it is like to have hundreds of people assaulting you with impossible amounts of reading you "must" do, then gettuing all <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> off at you because you didn't read thousands of pages overnight. Not just reading it, but "reeeeeaaaaalllly reading it".
You don't know what it's like to have some <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> tell you you're not looking at the stars correctly.
You don't know what it's like to have Nick Walsh yell at you for an hour because he doesn't like the museum you visited.
Yes, Steve and I have drawn different "conclusions" about the LYM, just as a Nazi sympathiser would draw a different conclusion about Hitler than a Holocaust survivor would.
What are you doing on this message board? Do you want victims of cult abuse to just back down and say, "Oh, you're right. I guess nothing all that bad happened to me. Or if it did, it was my fault."
Well, I'm not going to and neither should any of the others.
Do you know what it's like every day you go back to the office, to have Montez grill you about what you did the day before, and why? Why, because most of it didn't have anything to do with LaRouche and you still haven't read The Children of Satan.
The Children of Satan doesn't make sense, but if you can't make sense out of it, you're not intelligent enough to understand it--yet.
They're going to teach you how to be smarter--but not in any conventioal means. First you must get over this "bull identity". This completely false sense that you're worth something as an idividual, because that's what's "blocking" you. That's why you're "blocked". It's that annoying sense of self-worth that so many contacts usually have when they come to us, but we fix that.
You know, I'm just tired.
What they do to people is wrong. W-R-O-N-G.
Do you know what it's like to try to get back to your life and have to see them almost every day? Do you? Do you? Then shut up.
No one cares if he's got some economic policy that's suppsoed to magically solve all the world's problems. If it was so great, they would not have to deceive people to get them to pay attention to it.
Maybe LaRouche is just a freak on a power trip, did that ever occur to you?
If not I suggest you meditate on that concept before you post again.}

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-18-2005, 08:21 AM
Dear Erin B,
I have read your posts above, and what occurs to me is that your argument would be more effective if it were properly organised. I suggest writing out, in proper paragraphs, with commas and such, a bulleted, chronological list of your unpleasant experiences with the LYM. You've said or suggested you were interrogated, held captive, yelled at, "grilled," assigned reading material by hundreds of people, and generally disapproved of. So, pretend you're being questioned by the police, and you're submitting your testimony in as clear a manner possible. This way, when people read your allegations, they will have a clear idea of what happened, even though they weren't there.
The more specific, exact data you can come up with, regarding your experiences, laid out in a chronological, easy-to-read fashion that doesn't rely on your personal attacks against anyone, but simply reports what happened, as if in answer to a police interrogation, the clearer your message will become.
DH
P.S.
I agree that Steven is a being a bit disingenuous about the movement's standards. I imagine violating those standards will get one ejected fairly soon - try habitually showing up for a bel canto lesson smelling of sage, for instance.

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
11-18-2005, 08:59 AM
Dear Mr. Borracho,
You have given me an opportunity to make a two-pronged point.
Rules are rules are rules are for the birds (and perhaps monkeys, and a Hobbesian society made up of such monkeys under contract law).
It is just as I have described the United States above. You cannot expect to make laws in a decadent U.S. that would make everyone act according to your NRA (which creepily reminds one of the book 1984). What you do is, you achieve an agreement, a discovery of a new intention. "I used to do this. I was wrong, and I was decaying and destructive. I will now do this, and work to develop." And if the experience overall has not made a genuine agreement to that effect, after a long time of work, then you will get passed by in the fast pace of the organization.
Mr. Borracho, you needn't place so much attention to formal rules, for you will find there is no code of law, no system of statutes (as there is at my university). The youth movement, literally, is largely a perfect idea in our minds, made up of imperfect, yet perfecting people. And if you are Rafael's Aristotle, I beg you to lift yourself and look up.
Respectfully,
Steven

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-18-2005, 04:14 PM
Dear Steven,
I really don't know what you're on about. As I've shown above, the movement intends to legislate quite a lot in its efforts to direct the decadent masses towards enlightenment. And we already have plenty of laws to restrain decadent America, that the movement has given no indication it has any interest in repealing. So, legislating morality will play a significant role in reaching the proposed NRA.
That the movement can get by as an informal club, approaching the anarchistic ideal of decision-making by principled consensus, is a quality it will have the furthest extreme of difficulty in transferring to the American populace as a whole. Even switching tracks toward doing that, though, I think, will require overcoming the psychic immune system of the population as a whole, as when a certain critical threshold is reached, it will react against the mental intruder, perhaps violently. How do you imagine the movement shall Beyond Psychoanalyse an entire nation?
DH

 

erin_b (erin_b)
11-21-2005, 06:49 PM
I object to the statement that "BDSM is a good way to organize the masses" that you both seem to agree on.
I am not arbitrarily making personal attacks. I am attacking your defenses of the LYM that become more and more creepy and unsettling.
What I've written so far is divided into very clear and easy to read paragraphs.
Perhaps you should be advising LaRouche to organize his writing to make it easier to read.
I am not making references to obscure historic figures and labling them "evil" just because I don't like them. I am pointing out that LaRouche is evil, because he is.
I said early on that I hate you. That's the closest thing to a personal attack I've made here. Let me be more specific. I'm scared of you because of things you have posted here. I'm scared of Steve because of things he's said.
I am scared of Steve because he called me and tried to indoctrinate me all over again when it should be clear to anyone with half a brain that I am not going back.

They will take money from anyone they think is vulnerable or gullible enough to be convinced to give them a few bucks. They don't care if you know what you are donating money to, or believe in it.

The first time the campaign thrust me out on the street in an unsafe neighborhood to distribute literature, I only talked to one person. I learned a lot about the campaign from the one person I talked to on my first day.
This was a man who turned out to have an obvious mental disablility. Even though I have a not-so-obvous mental disability, I knew it would be unethical to ask this man for money when he could not possibly know enough about the organization from talking to me to make an informed decision. This was someone who did not even know who the vice president was.
When I related to members about this later, several of them. Not one bad apple, but several of them remarked that "somebody like that", you can usually get some money from them.
One of them said, "There's no point talking to soemone like that."
I let them know that I was offended and that I disagreed, but I did not realize that disagreeing with the way they think is not tolerated in the LYM. How was I to know that?
I am being as clear as I can. It's been two years. Shall I wait till I'm not angry about this anymore to say anthing? That is not likely to happen.
It is completely wrong that they knew I was manic-depressive and pushed me that much anyway.
Even if it hadn't happened to me, I would think if I knew about somethign like this, I would think it was really wrong and unfortunate.
Unless for some reason I just didn't beleive the person. Is that it? Do you not believe me? Are you like Steve and have a problem with criticism of LaRouche? Who are you?
I have highlited something in block text. I hope that makes my arguments more convincing.

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-21-2005, 09:35 PM
Dear Erin B,
You'll have to excuse Steven, for he has climbed into Socrates' basket and is now contemplating the Sun. I choose to remain on the Earth, because I think there are too many things the LYM are ignoring and choosing not to explain, at their peril – witness the recent UCLA debate between LaRouche PAC and the Randian LOGIC group, who destroyed them, because the LaRouchies never attacked their moral axioms, as I would have done. I also I find it interesting to hear your stories about the LYM's actions.
(Note that I didn't argue for involuntary mental assault on the masses, as you suggest. Rather, it appears that becoming cognitive requires an individual to become extremely self-disciplined, which a companion organisation can help with.)
I'm all for fundraising, but nevertheless, trying to shake down a retarded man is a bit much. And calling people endlessly appears to be a signature of theirs. Of course, you may be lying, but how would I tell? Perhaps Steven can tell these things.
Manic-depression is something they mentioned one time, in a Campaigner article I think. They argued that lithium was some kind of mind-killer. But this is hard to take given how badly many people are afflicted with this condition. Not everyone can logic, reason, or will their way out of things. Did they try to restrict your sleep allotment? – that's a good way to mess up a manic-depressive.
DH

 

erin_b (erin_b)
11-27-2005, 09:28 PM
There wasn't an official "sleep alotement", but at Cadre School it was impossible to sleep. I got less than three hours each night. I assume this is what it's like to be in the org fulltime?
Try telling them you need a full night's sleep each night for health reasons. Or anything else for that matter. They'll tell you you don't really need it.
Nick Walsh told me, "It's your meds that are messing you up."
I can remember many talks where members would try to talk me out of my belief that I have the disorder. It's a strange position to be in having to stick to your resolve that you're mentally ill.
"Who told you you were disabled?"
"Doctors." (More than one. I've lived with manic-depression for 8 years now. Plenty of time for a second opinion, a third, a fourth. In and out of denial. Plenty of experiences to teach me what I wouldn't listen to from my doctor 8 years ago)
"You're not disabled."
"You're not disabled."
"You're not disabled."
This same conversation over and over. Groups of two to four of them would confront me about this regularly, during the six months or so that I was in the organization.
They really wanted me to believe that the diagnosis was just some arbitrary label that some doctor had given me just to make money.
"It's just a label." was another one I heard repeatedly.
I had never once asked any of these people whether they believed I was really manic-depressive. Their opinion was irrelivant to me. To me, the score on whether I was manic-depressive was pretty much settled when I was homeless for a year because of it, so to me, they were pretty much making fools of themselves over this one.
Liz Sopovich, according to other members at the L.A. office, is a psychiatrist. Liz, wherever you are, you are extremely irresponsible. Because I know you know this was going on. And if you're going to condone people telling me to go off my meds, you'd better not bother me when I'm smoking a cigarette.
None of these people knew my life, nor did they care. At the time I took their advice as well-meaning people who were just uneducated about disorders like manic-depression. But the truth is, LaRouche has deliberately given them misinformation.
LaRouche is always talking, excuse me, out of his <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font>, about mental disorders. He does not know what he's talking about. His followers believe fully that he does. He says this disorder is caused by too much television and by listening to "satanic" music, and this disorder is caused by all the wrong mathematics being taught in the school system, and they believe him.
"You don't need to take meds", they don't hesitate to tell a contact who says they have a mental disorder and could only organize a few hours a week even if they did buy all those conspiracy theories, "They diagnosed you with a disorder because you're so smart."
Why, you're smart enough to stand here like a trained monkey and pass out pamphlets.
Can I, really?
I must apologize for the sarcasm. I've been trying to write about this for two years and have been unable to find any other way to express myself.
Erin

 

kheris (kheris)
11-29-2005, 06:20 PM
Erin
I am so sorry to hear about the way you were abused, and yet it seems so typical. It really makes me wonder about what happened to Jeremiah Duggan. What must he have experienced his last night on earth? I also have to wonder why someone who seems relatively well adjusted (such as Beltran) would willingly associate with such a crowd. Or do they not subject their potential rainmakers to the sort of abuse you experienced?
I have a niece in college and the one piece of advice I gave her was to stay away from the card table shrines.
Thanks for having the guts to confirm that the organization is as whacko as I believe it to be. I feel sorry for those guys, they have no idea how twisted they really are.

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-29-2005, 09:59 PM
Dear Erin B,
Three hours sleep per night is lunacy – lunacy squared for a manic-depressive. I think Harley Schlanger was the one who mentioned "sleep is overrated," but this is ridiculous. Perhaps they expected you to learn the soldierly skill of snatching sleep whenever and wherever possible, standing up, on the bus, in a car, on the can, etc.?
Talking someone out of taking their meds is a damned risky business. People can end up dead. I wonder if Mr. Duggan took medication of any kind?
The position on manic-depression and other illnesses that Mr. LaRouche advocates, is theoretically sound. The mind /is/ more than just brain tissue, and /can/ be fundamentally changed and improved through passionate discoveries. But it seems to me that in your case, which many ex-members argue is typical, we're dealing with a Sgt. Hartman type, Full Metal Jacket sort of kicking people in gear. One of their amazons, Debra Freeman maybe, said at a conference, "If you don't [measure up] in this organization, you getcher butt kicked." If this is the quality of their training, I can understand your anger. They're lucky some ex-member doesn't walk into a meeting with a machinegun.
Not giving credence to the depressive or manic episodes that a given person is prone to due to an actual brain deformity (even if it's a chemical imbalance, the brain is the one producing the chemicals, hence some kind of micro-deformity in the brain tissues). This leads me to ask whether they deny schizophrenia itself? They seem to be inspired by this shining notion of the absolute power of the mind – which is fine, I tend to think so myself – but they presume that this power is /actual/ rather than /potential/, and that anyone can just think their way out of a serious mental illness, if only they listen to Bach a hundred times a day.
Satanic music and the like is going to damage your ability to think on a cognitive level – try watching Dumbest Videos on tv for about four hours; you can feel yourself getting stupider. But is it going to give you manic depression, schizoaffective, or anything else of the kind? Not to my knowledge. If Mr. LaRouche is actually totally right on these matters, all I can say is he's doing a damned poor job of communicating it.
The notion that manic-depression can be a sign of intelligence is not without merit. A hypomanic person may tend to get smarter and think clearer than before, but in relatively disordered minds this comes at the cost of suffering cognitive myopia. Most highly successful people like politicians, entrepreneurs, and high-level criminals are probably always hypomanic, to their advantage. But I have yet to see anyone demonstrate a way to harness serious mental illness and turn it into a source of power. If they could, they could empty the asylums!
DH
P.S.
More and more it seems that this army is being mismanaged. Those L.O.G.I.C. debaters had a point about self-ownership that merits addressing. In other words, the army has no Bill of Rights, only the General Welfare clause as interpreted by General L. Perhaps Steven sees this discontinuity. No one in the Canadian military is allowed to touch anyone else without that person's express permission, for instance. It seems to me that verbal abuse here shades into the notion of body ownership, mind ownership, and such – we have the problem that under the U.S. Constitution, nobody really owns anything in an absolute sense, including their bodies; and in the movement, this appears to extend to the mind. We are all cogs in the machine, with no right to do anything other than slave away for cognitive freedom, so that others can slave away for cognitive freedom, ad infinitum. Something smells a little off about that, but perhaps I'm too ignorant to grasp the matter. Care to comment, Steven?

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
11-30-2005, 09:28 AM
Dear Mr. Borracho,
At one cadre school a couple years back, my first cadre school (in fact, I believe Erin was in attendance), I asked Mr. LaRouche an honest question:
Question: "Hi, I'm very excited about this movement. So, I find myself--not arguing, but explaining the movement to a lot of my friends, and people that are interested, and people that aren't interest, and I find myself having a lot of talks with a lot of good, smart people over the nature of man, order, goodness, and so forth. But, I also find, that in this talk, I lose a lot of these good, smart people, in these theoretical differences.
"But, when I stop talking about this aspect of the LaRouchie movement, and move on to the anti-fascism, anti-dictatorship, serving governments versus ruling, all around republic ideals [sic], I find that basically everyone--these are the universal principles that unite, that will unite this movement, and will push it forward.
"And so, I kind of see myself--I'm kind of asking you, is that a better way to approach the LaRouchean movement, to other people, in explaining the republic ideals, that the LaRouchean movement stands for? And then, the economic application that we also are proposing?" -July 26, 2003 West Coast Cadre School
As you can tell already, I was beginning to organize my thoughts around ideas for the first time, and out popped this very disjointed statement/question. My concern was, since we can easily prove that Cheney is a fascist, within a few paragraphs of scientific discourse, would it not be better to simply educate people to this political end and worry about the cultural ideas later?
Mr. LaRouche's response was brilliant, as usual. He said simply, "Tell the truth." The problem of Dick Cheney is a symptom of a sophist, self-doomed culture, one that has strayed far from natural law. Be strategic in your organizing, but, above all else, tell the truth.
And if people tell the truth, since everyone's experiment with truth is unique to varying degrees, people should always be confronting problems in their discussions with other people who emphasize different predicates. Chaotic? Not really. Although we all understand a different set of predicates, through Socratic discussion (a communication-experiment) we can approximate higher degrees of understanding of each other and the universe in general, such that compared to others who have not had our experiment, there appears to emerge a unified idea in both their minds that is real in the universe.
When I read Mr. LaRouche's writings or listen to his speeches, I am happy to study someone with a proven and intelligible investigative and communicative method. On the other hand, I am never even, say, 10% content with what he has put forth. For example, he will make scores of references to people and/or ideas in history that I will have little to no knowledge of. I then say, Good! Now there is a problem I wish to investigate from here, because, as of now, I do not agree with Mr. LaRouche (or whoever I may be studying or even speaking to, communicating with in general, either to a human or to the Creator through his derivative intentions). I hear what he is saying and I understand his thesis, at least the idea behind it, but I could not assert in a confident manner that same thesis without "doing the homework."
Now, the LYM employs this method, with varying degrees of wit or self-awareness. As a newbie, one tends to be more obsessed with the hypothesis that a contact is principally wrong in matters of responsible citizenry (i.e. voting for FDR/LaRouche policies). The effect of this knowledge, on an empirically unknowledgeable newbie, will tend to make one more confrontational; they want to get to the amazing thesis right away, unfortunately minimizing the empirical investigation that is necessary to provoke a sensual paradox for someone who has yet to discover the leaving-no-rock-unturned FDR thesis.
You accused me, as Aristophanes did to Socrates, of being obsessed with an outside world. You said I was too busy "observing the sun," when I was discussing the idea of the movement. Well, if you observe me interact with people, on a one-on-one basis, you will see that I do not get frustrated, mad, sad, or "upset" in any observable way. This is because I know that no matter how disagreeable a conversation with someone is, I know that we both have souls and were both created by the same Creator. Also, our souls are expressing themselves confusedly in this material world. But as rational souls, the more we communicate, the more we experiment, the less confused we will be. So, when a conversation turns nutty, I might laugh at the irony of this reality. You might even accuse me being obsessed with the outside world of truth, too busy "observing the soul." But what is the material expression without the soul? And vice versa, what is the soul without its material expression? Is this paradoxical distinction in fact a single idea?
Although this philosophical question I raise may seem to be concerned with the minutia and unrelated, it actually goes to the fundamental idea of the LYM. If you don't understand this, you can forget about trying to account for all the empirically imperfect on-goings amongst imperfect people in the organization.
The real problem here, is that you are agreeing with the Congress for Cultural Freedom's definition of mental abuse: telling the truth. And this leads you to such absurd characterizations as, "We are all cogs in the machine, with no right to do anything other than slave away for cognitive freedom, so that others can slave away for cognitive freedom, ad infinitum." Mr. Curtis and Erin B. have had a subconscious affect on you, it would seem. They take the good, spin it around, use pejorative words to describe the action, and, eventually, make the question of our concern, Are we allowed to agree to disagree? This is the founding axiom of the CCF, Dennis King, picked up by Mr. Curtis, and is holding together the deductive logic expressed by the majority on this message board.
Respectfully,
Steven
P.S.
The reason why L.O.G.I.C. was soundly "defeated" by Cody and Sky was, throughout the debate, none of its members attempted to prove or even acknowledge the existence of truthful ideas of causation. This made them incapable of forecasting, incapable of reaching an understanding of natural law, and simple capable of creating a nightmarish Hobbesian society (derived from contract law), which would, in a text book way, lead to the utter extinction of mankind if played out to its fullest without reversal.

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-30-2005, 04:45 PM
Dear Steven,
Let's get serious for a minute. I mean, ultimately serious. We're in a world where ultra-technologies are on the horizon - technologies that will lend themselves to horrifying levels of oppression and cruelty. We can epitomise this in the mind control technologies developed in the past fifty years by various scientists, including Jose Delgado – and which are currently almost entirely unregulated and unacknowledged. We are moving into an era where the potential for absolute control of every human mind exists, where the potential for not just burning people at the stake, but burning them at the stake /for a hundred years/ exists.
Two hundred thirty-odd years ago, when they were cooking up the American Revolution, they were planning to establish a new government, and they took great pains to work out this matter. But there were some people involved in the writing of the constitutional documents, like Jefferson, who were damned argumentative, for fear of entrenching a new oppressor.
The potential oppressor of today doesn't look like the one of yesterday. Yes, we have a fascist imperial impulse, but ultimately, what of it? It will collapse soon, and, at worst, slow humanity down for a few thousand years. But what if /we/ succeed? Then, we'll be perpetuating the scientific impulse of development, that will place ever greater powers in our hands, and make our mistakes that much deadlier, harder to predict, and harder to prevent.
If we do not consider these matters carefully – in other words, if we leave human progress in the hands of people who are too daft to grasp that a manic-depressive needs more than three hours of sleep a night – this show is going to go off the rails into the very Hobbsean nightmare you fear. Except it's going to happen a hundred years from now, and it'll be a hundred times worse – and a thousand times more durable – than anything in the past. Empires can last a long time. Better that we annihilate the biosphere utterly, than allow that to happen.
I stand by my description that you term absurd. In your philosophy we are slaves of God, built to do his bidding, at any price – even to let fools fly us into the heart of the storm I forecast above. Does God care how many billions of people are tortured for decades by some future interstellar empire? Yeah, he'll feel so bad, maybe it'll put him off his tea. The experiences of extended hours, lack of sleep, and Sgt. Hartman (who was also telling the truth, mostly)–style of troop training and discipline complained of by the ex-members here and elsewhere, should be taken as the expected standard of behaviour all citizens of the NRA will be living up to, on pain of "getting their butt kicked." The difference is, magnify that foolishness into the policy and behaviour of the entire United States government and all its affiliates. What social lithium will NRA be depriving civilisation of? What form of schizophrenia will it be working into the neural flesh of the body politic?
A perfect example of the movement not addressing the seeds of its own destruction, is this Holocaust revisionist business. Unless you can show otherwise, I have no reason to think that the quote given of Mr. LaRouche arguing for revised Jewish casualty numbers, is inauthentic. So, there are two options. Either he agrees with the revisionists and is pretending otherwise for political reasons, or he did agree with them but later changed his mind, and is pretending he never changed his mind, also for political reasons. This one point, more than anything, will crucify the movement, once, if ever, the movement picks up steam, and its opponents rally to destroy it publicly. You think the movement's suffered persecution thus far? The Holocaust is the bloody state religion! So, the movement is laying low on this one, hoping it can slip into power without anyone noticing that little boner.
On the soul versus the percepts, if one had no percepts, one would have no indications of change, and thus no emotions, which are always responses to changes, and thus no thoughts, which are always motivated by emotions. (This, of course, causes one to wonder what percepts God has.) One's sensorium is always, in effect, giving one perfectly accurate information about the universe, because all interactions between it and one's nervous system are always obeying natural law, and thus the picture produced is a picture of natural law in action. The "glass darkly" is the axioms, not the senses (one of the reasons psychedelics are so compelling – because they offer access to hidden sensory information – and because they are axiom-destroyers).
On L.O.G.I.C., the LYM might've piqued some curiousity, but it was a debate, not a dialog. Debates are decided by the audience, like elections. And on that count, the LYM lost, because they never exposed L.O.G.I.C. as being crocodiles-with-a-plan, in contrast to the emotional core of humanity. It's not enough to say "Scientists give themselves for humanity" – evolutionary psychology can explain that as a distorted form of kin altruism. They had to cut to the core and argue that love of reason is the basic emotion of humanity, powering everything we do, and that the presence of that changes the rules. But they didn't, and so they were jeered as people who support government stealing, by audiences who have more of a stake in their personal property than in distorted kin altruism.
DH

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
12-01-2005, 01:30 PM
Dear Mr. Borracho,
Well, Mr. LaRouche always says that if one wants to find that which is causing a paradox, one has to poke it with a stick and see how it reacts. I think I poked you.
The truth is, Dick Cheney represents a political cabal, a group of moles really. These groupings, particularly the neoconservatives, have penetrated the political, economic and private mainstream institutions, ultimately on the behalf of an historical elite, centered in Britain and so forth.
If this mole structure is successful, existing mankind and its posterity will be decimated, possibly to extinction given the possibility of nuclear holocaust. Now, the noetic principle will still exist and will materialize again at some point, but that is for the Composer to figure out.
The question that we have before us, is whether or not a political force will rise to defeat this socially entropic phenomenon. And implicitly, the question that every individual must ask himself is, "Am I a force for good in this fight?" And also, "How powerful of a force am I?"
The LYM consists of members from every nook and cranny in the United States culture; the dynamic is quite brilliant (and the WLYM consists of members from every continent minus Antartica). And, all of these students are products of a failed educational institution in the United States; they dropped out of high school, they completed high school, they withdrew from college, they completed college, all walking away with an existential aftertaste of what Mr. LaRouche correctly identifies as the "No-Future" Generation. They have that in common, but not just that. They are all converts. Yes, Mr. LaRouche is the leading figure of an international cult of humanism. A conversion must take place. A human being, starting from birth, at some point must say, "Ah ha! I was born predominantly irrational and selfish, but with a kernel of goodness. I now consciously acknowledge that, whatever my niche in society may be, I will work to the loving betterment of mankind and the universe at large." They may have done this before meeting Mr. LaRouche's movement, or during collaboration; either way, the commitment is there.
Now when I poked you, I found a nasty kernel of contempt: "…if we leave human progress in the hands of people who are too daft…."
This outburst assumes two things: 1) That human progress is not in your own hands and 2) that genius is instantaneous and does not require much hard work and development. (It also assumes that "inside" information from a self-professed, deeply depressed and confused individual is grounds for impeachment.)
I can spend hours responding to everything on your post, bit by bit, but would rather discuss that via actually live conversation. Instead, I will address a most disturbing pathological statement, that "In [my] philosophy we are slaves of God, built to do his bidding, at any price."
We are created a particular way; that is certain. We can call this nature. And in our nature, we are creative, in the Leibnizian sense (reason is logic+creativity, creativity is the ability to ask and answer "why," that is, truthful contemplate and act in accordance with causation). Your statement implies that we are slaves to our own nature. This is absurd. Why not simply say, we have a nature. We are who we are. You imply that, somewhere out there, there is another universe where we are not us. And you have nostalgia for that paradoxical existence. I mean, why not just join the ranks of environmentalists who wish to be referred to as monkeys? They do not want to be slaves to their nature, their humanity. This universe exists because it must exist. That is an intention, a powerfully creative principle. It is absolutely satanic to deny this.
I think you are hung up over how the LYM operates on a day-to-day basis. These silly people are putting their masturbatory fantasies in your head. Why not do what I have done, when confronted with such an awesome paradox? Go there. Be part of the movement for a day, a week, a month, year, whatever. That way you are not just looking at the damn paradox, but you are poking it. You see the principle tangibly, and, as a human, you can act on it, and make its physical manifestation better, more Good.
Holocaust figures? What I know of Zionism, is that it has been used to the benefit of geopolitical chess games since the end of the 19th century. Knowing that, you might ask yourself why this emotionally charged nuclear-hand grenade is being thrown amidst an already devastated culture. Well, you might make a side hypothesis regarding a possible action of an Establishment that is up to something fishy (that is, deadly) and that is already a notorious lying machine. And it seems to be just that, a side hypothesis, of which I have never seen Mr. LaRouche reference it in any core argumentative sense, and in fact has been outspoken against the circles of people like Chomsky who might use this today to provoke a "right versus left" type of sophist debate, of which you are currently engaged.
On sense-perception and what not. The monadology. I suggest that you consider the distinction between contingent facts and necessary truths. Cause-effect relationships. Creativity and logic. Hypothesis and sensual observation. That is the real question.
As for the LYM losing the "debate". Ok, sure. I was essentially more concerned with who put forward the more truthful presentation as a whole, not whether it was digested. Here is a part of the answer that Mr. LaRouche gave to me in the question I referenced in my last post:
"Now therefore, what you have to do is this: You have to take the view of--which I've always done; I've done for a long time, and it works--and that is: Tell the truth! Start with telling the truth. A very simple commission of policy: Tell the truth. And then, they'll say, "No." Okay. Keep saying it. They'll say, "No." Keep saying it. Then reality will catch up with them, and they'll look at you--"What was that, you were saying?"
"So therefore, the way to deal with this, is to say what should be said: the primary question is, what is truthful? Not what seems more successful, because most of the time, you'll get rejected by most people. But, that's all right! That's part of the process. That's part of the process: You have registered what you've said with them, as well as you could. That's the best you can do.
"Do it.
"Then, wait for the effect. It's like lighting a fuse on a firecracker. Light the fuse. The firecracker doesn't go off right away. Don't worry about it. It'll go off. Light the fuse; spread the idea. When people realize that the system has run out of steam, they will say, "What's the alternative?""
Respectfully,
Steve

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
12-02-2005, 12:59 PM
Dear Mr. Borracho,
It seems that you have fundamental objections to Mr. LaRouche's thesis on a recent paper he wrote: http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2005/3244darkage_in_educ.html
Care to discuss those objections?
Respectfully,
Steven

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
12-04-2005, 05:20 PM
Dear Steven,
Measure twice, cut once. Or, I don't plan on lighting a firecracker that I'm holding! I do not understand what the movement discusses, anywhere near enough to trust it. Even if it were feasible for me to sign up, which it isn't, I would not do so. Life has messed with me too many times for me to sign up for anything, without a long and labourious consideration of the matter, until I am sure beyond all doubt, and then we'll review our notes again from the top. You can't catch a fish with a lure if he'd rather starve than get a hook in his mouth again.
But even hypothetically, the notion that I or anyone else will be able to change the course of the movement is unrealistic. The upper tiers have all the knowledge they need, and their intermediate goal with the LYM is to transfer as much of that knowledge as possible, to increase their effectiveness at applying it as a political lever to jigger the White House enough to ameliorate the worst of the present policies. They're pushing a rock up a hill, and one more person might help them push it faster, but they're not going to listen to someone saying "Hey guys, I think there's another rock we need to push up here, too." That's about as likely as you smoking a few rocks of DMT before Christmas.
On God and natures: If we have a nature, that means we are intended to do something, which means we are /tools/. A tool never exists for its own sake, it exists for the sake of its owner's goals, and is discarded once it wears out. Now, perhaps some tools /like/ being tools. E.g., Perhaps you feel something I don't. I may use the terms "universal love" and "agape," but those are triangulated references to something that I do not feel, nor ever have felt. So, without a compelling carrot for me, backed by that nine-volume governmental review, you'll have to apply a stick, and the only stick that will move me on this account, is fear of Hell. Unless you can wave that in front of me convincingly, God can shove it.[1]
On that "side hypothesis" about WWII: Another word for it is "Achilles' Heel."
I'm rather eyestrained right now; is that article you linked to more or less the same as "The Tragedy of American Education"? They tend to repeat themselves a lot.
DH
[1]
Who is this God character anyway? Who rolled the dice and made him friggin Emperor of the Universe? Somebody must've got the seating arrangements wrong.

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
12-08-2005, 02:38 PM
Dear Mr. Borracho,
Although I have been preoccupied with other pressing matters of late, I have been rolling around in my mind what you have posed to me. I keep coming to the same general aftertaste: I am speaking to a baby-boomer (generally someone who's education was not geared to Schiller's idea of educating one's emotions) who does not want to accept that Good is good, for goodness sake!
Apparently, I do feel something that you do not, that is, agape. However, that is not the crux of the distinction. I know that Good is good, and that Good is beautiful. That powerful knowledge, that no lower beast has the ability to attain, compels an ear-to-ear smile of contentment, which is distinct from a rock or rap concert fanatic who finds himself jumping up and down, sweat dripping from his emotionally raped mind.
Imagine a time in the near future, when we have freed the nations of Africa from their slavery. Imagine walking through the villages as liberators. Imagine Gen. MacArthur walking through the streets of the Philipines, as he described in his memoirs his uncontrollable tears streaming down his face, his body repulsed at what was done to the poor people, and his mind freed to thank God for giving him the strength to do Good. Imagine President Lincoln walking through the liberated streets of Richmond, having former slaves, people, thank him and God for their courage.
Now imagine watching those Africans that we will have freed, and glance over to the glowing children in the schools built to the left, and the other public works projects employing respectable African men and women to the right. If there be no tears that stream from your face, tears of an irony produced by the combined effect of the knowledge of the grief from the past, gratefulness for the present, and hope for the future, then, indeed, I pity what has been done to your humanity more than what the satanic forces have done to Dick Cheney.
Who is God? He is the intellectual force that made you. If you were any different, if you wish that events occurred differently, to produce a different you, you would not exist. Mr. Borracho would not exist; there would only be some poor parity, some wannabe, some person that could only exist in a universe that was not Good enough to exist, some person not even worthy of the name "Mr. Borracho".
Who is God? Well, in philosophy, God is an idea. And when you have your head on straight, you know that ideas are the most powerful forces in this universe, because they cause things to happen the way empiricists can only see and generalize about, and please themselves over the effects (maybe they even win Nobel prizes).
The LYM is an idea, because it is modeled to understand and act on ideas, and, therefore, ideas express themselves materially more because the LYM exists.
Respectfully,
Steven

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
12-08-2005, 02:49 PM
p.s.
In case the brain dead grammarian Sancho is watching, "parity" = "parody," an honest typo.

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
12-08-2005, 06:33 PM
Lets talk about Rock music and the larouche org. for a minute.
Previously we have posted some exerpts from convicted felon Don Phau's article about the Satanic roots of Rock. We also have numerous quotes about how the Beatles were created by Tavistock to enslave the world in an orgy of drugs and homosexuality.
25 years ago, John Lennon was gunned down in NYC. We sprang right into action the next day at our card table shrines and telephone boiler rooms.
For many weeks, we had signs about the death and how the world was better off without Lennon. One sign we had on deployments stated:
HOW MANY BEATLES DOES IT TAKE TO SCREW IN A LIGHT BULB?
When a person came up to our card table shrine, we told them the answer:
"Obviously it can't be four"
Another sign we wrote up stated:
"HAPPINESS IS A WARM GUN"
If anyone felt a tinge of fright over the prospect of living in LaroucheWorld, your sensation is correct.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com

 

borisbad (borisbad)
12-20-2005, 01:41 PM
It's interesting how fixated LHL is on Hannah Arendt's Authoritarian Personality since he sees so much of himself and his organization in it. Covering himself in the mantle of Schiller and Bach and Plato does not make him a humanist but rather one who uses ideas and his facile use of terms from various writings or other works to overpower, overawe and intimidate. Since most members of the LYM or the RYM as it used to be known before it degenerated back into the gang melieu it came from would never have time to read or get familiar with a smattering of the works LHL refers to, they have to believe that they can't dispute anything he says because they can never know as much as he does. So people like Grendon likes to equate LHL with such people as Lincoln and FDR but LHL makes people slaves, he doesn't free them. Name one person that LHL has actually helped materially or spiritually? Of course the simple equation is save people by giving money to LHL. And mobilize for the sake of keeping people in a hysterical pitch as he did with Mop Up, the various stop nuclear war scenarios of the 70s and 80s, the save the economy mobilizations of the past 40 years

 

sancho (sancho)
12-30-2005, 07:36 AM
Hysterical, too, the way the yutes sing slave songs on the deployment!
Happy New Year to everyone! May any of you involved with LaRouche in 2005 succeed in being restored to life and freedom in 2006.

 

sancho (sancho)
01-03-2006, 01:19 PM
There is no need any longer to wait with breath bated for the latest confusion of DH: just check out the postmodernism generator at
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo
By refreshing the screen n times, you get n randomly generated pieces of blather a la our friend, DH, whose use of language is at least more precise than that of the "World's Greatest Jailbird Since Socrates", LHL, Joonyah.
See also, "On the Simulation of Postmodernism and Mental Debility Using Recursive Transition Networks" by A.C. Bulhak.
(Message edited by sancho on January 03, 2006)

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
01-06-2006, 03:01 PM
Dear Sancho,
As Steven seems to have gone for lunch, I have a question for you. In your experience with the movement, did you ever master any of the moderately advanced things like doubling the cube or singing correctly?
DH

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
01-07-2006, 01:18 PM
Happy New Year everyone. Another year of educating yutes about what they signed their young lives over to is about to begin.
Dh, I can't answer for Sancho, but, I can tell you what generally happens in the org. You are given the illusion of mastering these endeavors in the standard LC way. In other words, any subject approached first has to have the foundations and history attacked. The people involved in things like music, math and science are then placed in the six degree of larouche conspiracy as part of a several thousand year struggle.
Now, you are introduced to the "real insider" information which has been hidden for thousands of years from humanity by the oligarchs. A few LC memebrs are now paraded as experts on this and write an article or two for our publications. Each person looks for Lyn's blessing to do more work.
What happens later is hilarious. In the NYC and Leesburg center, many of the music people loved the fact that they could get away from the 24/7 insanity by practising and avoiding time at a card table shrine. This brought resentment from the regular members. The music people found that their hard research work was then usurped by Lyn who took the initial work, rewrote it with his whatever was the conspiracy of the month at the time and sent it as his own to the NEC as a "New breakthrough". This text was then sent over the telex lines to the local offices as a "ground breaking work" by Lyn.
When we moved to Leesburg, Lyn was set up in a mansion and now needed minstrels and dancers for nightly entertainment. The music staff now had a nightly role as entertainers when we brought in old ladies to meet Lyn before we had them sign away their life savings.
Most of these members in Leesburg did some research work on the side, but mainly prepared shows for Lyn and national conferences.
Kathy Wolfe was our singer who worked in the Asia file. Her claim to fame in the Asia sector was working as "Hostess" in a Japanese nightclub frequented by Japanese businessmen in the Toko netertainment district.
For the local card table shriners we had a Mexican guy named "Maestro Briano" I think. He spent time giving us Bel Canto breathing exercises.
DH, these once a week singing exercises were often done while we tried to get a local choir together. After manning either a card table shrine or a phone bank from 7 AM to 9 PM, class began. We would do these singing exercises which basically had us going "No, No, No, No, No to a musical scale. Briano would do this for an hour or two. At 10:30 we finally sang a few bars of a Bach piece and proclaim mastery over the human voice.
Kathy Wolfe gave Helga some singing lessons which became the talk of the org for years. It seems that in Leesburg she tried to teach a tone deaf Helga the Bel Canto method. She was not getting too far and one night suggested that maybe Helga's clothes were too tight for breathing deeply to the abdomen. Kathy and Helga stripped off their tops and bras and did the exercizes topless for a few hours.
We had some decent musicians who never really liked the card table shrine part of the org. They usually threatened to drop out until we placed them in an office job.
Math had the same formula as you did late night classes and listned to your local NC pretend that he or she knew something about math. Since you are usually tired from being out all day, and also left college, who was to know if anybody made sense?
As far as math skill go. I would just look at our math skills in accounting where we ran the shadiest ponzi scheme and ran rings around creditors, banks and members who wanted their loans repaid.
The bottom line DH is that when you take tired drop outs and fill their heads with supposed "Secrets known only to the inner Elites", you have the illusion that you actually are learning something.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
01-07-2006, 02:41 PM
Dear xlcr4life,
I see, so, in other words, you can't lay claim to having discovered /any/ ideas in the sense that the movement refers to. And you were actually /involved/ in this stuff. And Steven wonders why I remain relatively sceptical!
I really wish the movement would cut a lot of the crap and just answer questions like:
"How many Ideas have been discovered in Science and Art, and what are they?"
"Does everything a Genius touch turn to gold, or can they have off days?"
"To defend heterosexuality, don't we need to have a principle of /maleness/ and another of /femaleness/ to form the complement?"
"Given that it's the most flexible instrument known to man, is there any Classical use for the electric guitar?"
"Can we have a complete list of all classical composers and their works?"
"Can we have a complete list of all classical pieces of literature?"
"Can we have a complete list of any films [gasp!] that are worth spit?"
And so on. Perhaps a few of my questions are secondary, but you get my drift. There's far too much sugar-castle construction going on, with endless repetition of Joan of Arc doing this and Plato doing that. They're flying over all this territory, radioing their reports back to us about this mountain or that stream, but they're not giving us the map. Give us the map!
I suggest again that it might be useful to you (and to the movement) to collect your anecdotes, accredit them, arrange then chronologically, and publish them on a website (or on another thread here). That way people can more easily get a better "big picture" of fact, rather than fact mixed with argumentation and attack.
DH

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
01-07-2006, 09:15 PM
DH,
What happens in the org tends to be a confirmation of what most people think is good anyways. Most people think that classical music is something pretty good, Shakespeare must have something going for him and ancient math history had something to do with geometry.
What happens in the org is that the intensity is placed on only what Lyn has "revealed" for the membership which no one else knows.
Virtually every bit of the orgs works will be contaminated with some bit of kookery. If you stick around long enough you can see how it works. When we worked with sleazy dictators around the globe, they became "Platonists". Anti semitic Libery Lobby people became "Patriots". Anything remotely associated with Aristotle has to be evil. No good writers exist except for what Lyn has told you because they are part of a 6 thousand year conspiracy.
Present LYM math work is based on a high school substitute teacher named Bruce Director who once ran the Baltimore region until he was shuffled off to Leesburg to raise money. When the org stopped paying his bills, he joined the other members in teaching part time.
If you have a bunch of yutes who just dropped out of college, they will be more impressed by what they think is going on in LYM classes. When we ran into a graduate level student, you knew you were wasting your time because they actually knew what they were talking about while we had the catch phrases. I posted numerous articles from many colleges a while ago to see that this still continues.
The promise for the incoming yute is that a wealth of knowledge is available which does not require you to take tests, study or come under rigorous scrutiny. The only scrutiny the yutes will face will be after they return from their holidays with their parents. The scrutiny will be over how much cash the card table shrine or phone bank brought in.
If you are interested DH, there is an internal memo which is circulating on the web which shows what is in store for yutes. If I can find a copy I will post it here. I digress and now return to the yutes education.
Many ex members who left had the shock of their lives when they returned to the real world and saw that there are people with expertise who really know about these subjects and not just inside catch phrases. We have quite a few ex members who are pretty high up in banks, economics, education and such who returned to school to get their graduate degrees. Now these people were lucky because when they joined in the early 1970's, the org was not yet a mature cult of personality. These folks often had their BS or BA degree and staffed our National Center in NYC. One by one they left and moved on.
Look at this months Popular Science and see an article on science predictions for 2006. You will see many researchers give their opinions about science research. One of the people quoted with a picture is former member Robert Zubrin of the Mars Society. He was pro science and space way before he met the org. Back then, we seemed like the only Marxists with a game plan for taking power. Zubrin left the org and returned to college I read some where. He attended Grad school and earned a PHD. He has patents for rocket science and is considered an expert in his field. The guy even has a patent on three person chess he invented before he met us.
Do you think for one second that any respectable publication on space travel is going to even consider Larouche and the cult as being anything more than a nutcase? Our claim to fame is a half hour TV spot we did in the 80's for Lyn's campaign.
In music we picked up some musicians, singers and a ballerina through the Schiller Foundation hustle. You had to be carefull in that as you never let the lunacy come forward when you spoke to these people. Helga would be on her best behaviour and we would have the musicians in the org do the talking and pray that Lyn would not go crazy on them like he would often do with other sectors. We ran a c=256 campaign for singers which is funny when you look it up on the web today. It took some time for the music fans of opera to see how crazy we were.
That pretty much sums it up. We could take a reasonable idea and then shove Lyn down their throats until they saw how crazy we were. In most cases, when you see "names" on our petitions or at conferences, it is usually a person who has been tossed aside by their respective peer group. We know how to make the person feel important and in some cases they will beleive that their fall from grace is because of an evil conspiracy. This works on disgraced politicians and third world dictators as well as musicians. Ego is ego. After we try to get as much money as possible, they usually move away from us. In other cases they read up about our actual history and run away. We inturn will tell the members that so and so was harrased by the oligarchy as part of the world wide conspiracy against Lyn.
This stuff never changes.
That is my guess with Beltran and why you do not see his name anymore thrown around.
As far as discoveries go, I think they have all been done by ex members who left and joined the real world. Zubrin is one example. Our former cartoonist is an award winnner for a major US city daily paper. One ex member had his company featured in the Wall Street Journal as rapidly growing state of the art energy company. Natiinal Geographic has an ex member who is an editor. PHDs, patents, Supreme court brief writers, Fulbright scholar winner, award winning documentary producer are among us.
It seems that all of this creativity and growth took place after leaving the cult and rejoining the real world.
Play time was over.
As far as your suggestion goes. Understand that no one wishes to relive their past and have their names associated with the worst mistake of their lives. This site has been a gold mine for researchers and current members. A lot of the recent LYM who flew the coop also found computer time during deployments to read this site and justiceforjeremiah.com to see what they surrendered their lives for. I tried to post this tuff on the LYM forums, but they always shut down after a few postings of LC trivia.
A lot of parents email exerpts or mail hard copies of this site to their offspring. Harley and co thought that no one would ask about the Chris White brainwashing and the financial crimes.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com

 

wanderer (wanderer)
01-08-2006, 07:28 AM
Beltran's not that stupid. He only gave Lyn $2,000 before he got out. He waited to see what they were all about and then let them make fools of themselves.
In one workshop, the host and yutes all laugh about what a bad La Rouchie he is. In the last workshop videoed, Harley announces that Beltran is dedicating his life to Lyn and Beltran smirks. He finally proved what they'd been trying to trap him into.
Anyone who has watched those videos of his workshops realises he was putting them on. The exercises he was giving them was stuff given to Elementary school drama students and nonsense.
They swallowed it hook, line and stinker. Their Shakespeare was an embarrassment to experience.
(Message edited by Wanderer on January 08, 2006)
(Message edited by Wanderer on January 08, 2006)

 

kheris (kheris)
01-08-2006, 08:13 AM
Actually, I want to hear the explanation for RB's disappearance from a member of the organizaton. It would be interesting to see if outside speculation matches internal explanations.

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
01-08-2006, 05:25 PM
Dear xlcr4life, et al,
Yes, I'm interested in reading this memo you mention.
I find it interesting that my critique of the movement (as distinct from my critique of ideas espoused by the movement), employs the same technique of "noticing anomalies" that they themselves taught me.
Steven is far too enraptured to be seriously considering that these anomalies are like rivets vibrating loose from a rocketship. I hypothesise some deeper malaise at work here, whether in the movement alone, or in the Logoic analysis itself, I can't say.
Beltran's website mentions nothing of his politics. I sent him an email to see what he has to say about the matter. I'll let you know what he says.
DH

 

sancho (sancho)
01-09-2006, 07:51 AM
DH,
I appreciate your critique of LaRouchiania, but I often get rather the impression that you yourself seem to think you have the angle on everybody and everything. I once again ask you, how do you justify your own axioms (a contradiction)? Perhaps if you were to admit that your premises (not to mention the rules of deduction you deem valid) are as arbitrary as everyone else's - BY DEFINITION - then you might exhibit a tad more humility with respect to the rest of us deluded souls.
I also can't escape the feeling that what disappoints you most about the LaRouche fanatics is that they are not more explicitly racist and that they have kind things to say about MLK, Jr. for instance. Just a hunch.
In reply to your earlier question, I did learn specific skills in the LC, but what I learned was presented in such a half-assed fashion by people like Phil Rube who have no intellectual credentials whatsoever, that the knowledge never amounted to much. When I got out into the fresh air, the little things they ponder over like Koehler's apes I mastered in five minutes in an academic (horrors!) context. This is why I emphasize that the "mathematics" they play with is only the most rudimentary kind of stuff: but since professional mathematics is conveniently considered a fraud by them (since they have neither the time nor the patience nor the talent to learn it) they can play with recreational mathematical topics and fantasize that this is the real thing.
All the best,
Sancho

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
01-09-2006, 03:56 PM
Dear Sancho,
A Mentat exists [senses, emotes, thinks] outside of assumption. However, calculation demands intelligible data, which demands classification of inputs from the sensorium. The minimum of this is materialism-behaviourism. Whether or not other minds exist is irrelevant here, objects have characteristic behaviour patterns which can be analysed.
No one can think without the above premise, for without it, no one could successfully function on the pleasure/pain motivational axis. Attempting to derive a morality from the above alone, however, is a non sequitur. Insufficient data.
Racism is an hypothesis I rejected earlier on in life, also based on insufficient data. Instead I mentally carried anti-racism to its logical conclusion: killing white racists. Later, in the ongoing process of questioning my assumptions I began reading more on the issue and have changed my attitudes drastically, to the point of losing several friends (well, to be fair one was an anarchist, and the other had a Soviet Russian flag on his wall, so perhaps the split was inevitable).
Any bias generates a direction of thought, however, that tends to accelerate, distancing all other options, and so, periodically, I seek out novel, perpendicular, and hostile viewpoints to consider. Mr. LaRouche's racial analysis has added another level to my thinking that wouldn't otherwise exist, for instance, and the tension that generates enriches my calculations. I can now argue with racists as effectively as I can with anti-racists. On MLK, Jr, I have not studied him enough to conclude anything, other than he appears to have been a noble leader, but was associated with some sordid dealings.
The movement's mathematical excursions seem fairly advanced to a layman. But I don't think they've ever presented (or least, I never got the impression), that they were dismissing mathemetics per se. Rather, only that the source of the math as taught was erroneous. Thus, their simple "apings" of higher math are only intended to address bridging that gap at the fountainhead. Once bridged, as with the switch from Euclidean to Synthetic geometry, all the conventional stuff is recreated. Any other flaws in math are things at such high levels (Maxwell, etc.) that none of us here are competent to expose them, except in terms of those fundamentals. I don't need to know Marxist theory inside and out to tell you that it helped kill 100 million people in the Twentieth Century.
Cheers,
DH

 

kheris (kheris)
01-10-2006, 03:17 AM
Beltran's website mentions nothing of his politics. I sent him an email to see what he has to say about the matter. I'll let you know what he says.
DH
It would be a first if he actually talks about it to you. He doesn't say a word about it at his convention appearances, or at least none of the fans are reporting anything from that angle. He answers select emails from select people. His webmistress screens everything. Best of luck.

 

sancho (sancho)
01-10-2006, 06:15 AM
I, for one, am capable of assessing the strengths and weaknesses of more advanced areas of mathematics and physics. The brute fact remains that whatever the LaRouchites do at whatever level contributes not one epsilon to the advancement of human knowledge. The reason they focus on fundamentals is not because they are interested in examining foundations, but because the fundamentals are EASY to acquire between double shifts at the card-table shrine and thus EASY to assist in the inflation of one's ego.
If you can't get enough of crank mathematics (and their mathematics and physics are at least as "crank" as their politics and economics), may I suggest you check out the scribblings of a Dartmouth dishwasher by the name of Archimedes Plutonium. I don't know if he is still outside of a mental institution posting on the web, but you can easily find his old stuff all over the place: it is eerily reminiscent of LaRouche's fraudulent claims to have made something new.

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
01-10-2006, 08:08 AM
Dear Sancho,
I agree that they are not directly contributing to the advancement of knowledge, but I would note that that is not their intention. George Washington's revolutionary war army didn't contribute much either. Rather, they are trying to increase the potential for such discoveries. Any group that points people in the direction of classical Western culture is indubitably contributing to that potential, as is any group that seeks to reestablish the protectionist, producerist economy in opposition to globalism. Compared to them, no other political group comes close in this regard.
But, while Steven might interpret your reference of their use of easy primers as a statement made entirely in bad faith, I hold the possibility there is something to it. I reference, if you wish to bother, the following essay[1] by Canadian writer Michael Nenonen, concerning the similarities between religious zealots and secular zealots. If you read it, I ask you this question: From their writings (notably "How Jesus and His Followers Saved Civilization" by Robert Dreyfuss), the LaRouche movement appears solidly under the banner of Logos. Has Mr. Nenonen exposed a flaw in them?
Lastly, regarding your scientific capabilities: If you are so qualified, can you then comment on why the Synthetic geometry referenced in "The Science Of Christian Economy" is wrong?
DH
[1]
Fundamentalist Secularism
http://www.republic-news.org/archive/96-repub/96_nenonen.htm

 

sancho (sancho)
01-10-2006, 02:51 PM
George Washington's army did not dawdle at ratty card tables believing themselves creative minds. Nor was George Washington a manipulative cult leader. Another instance of the logical fallacy of argument by analogy.
I would agree that LaRouche belongs under the banner of (the) Logos (cable television network).
Synthetic geometry is not "wrong", nor is anything they say within geometry per se "wrong." Steiner was a major figure in the history of mathematics. But to say that homological algebra, say, is a waste of time in deference to some childish math fair display of the golden section, then that is not only NOT renaissance-inducing, but sheer obscurantist antiintellectualism.
As you yourself have noted, LaRouche can only barely compose a coherent paragraph, let alone one with intelligent content. This is the leader of your renaissance? No Erasmus, he.
P.S. Mr. Dreyfuss is very happy, by the way, over at _The Nation_ where they do real battle against the Cheneyites.
www.justiceforjeremiah.com (http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com)

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
01-10-2006, 03:55 PM
Dear Sancho,
Well, Washington wasn't fighting a culture war, was he? But he did manipulate thousands of men to their deaths in an unnecessary shooting war. And he was part of a number of cults – the cult of nationalism, the cult of Deism, the cult of Freemasonry, the cult of slave-ownership, and perhaps others. Blather about "cults" is a mug's game, especially in this age of the Debordian "spectacle."
Prime Calculation is that your reference to "the Logos cable television network" is a sarcastic joke. Please clarify reference.
I don't recall any movement statement that "homological algebra," whatever that is, is a waste of time. How does this bear on the dispute between Gauss and his opponents over the complex domain? Or over the crucial premise that Newtonian physics as admitted to be absurd by Newton himself, and from that Gaussian distinction, cannot ever account for the negentropic character of the universe? (Hence the reemergence of Creationism under the name "ID," locked in combat with the fundamentalist materialists led by Richard Dawkins.)
Memory lapse: When did I note that Mr. LaRouche can "only barely compose a coherent paragraph…[etc]"? Please refresh.
On Mr. Dreyfuss, I cannot comment on The Nation – though cursory searches for "nuclear," "derivatives," "immigration," and "classical," were not promising (anyone referring to "undocumented workers" gains a treason point) – but given his migration to this magazine, I have a question. Does he now disavow what he wrote in "How Jesus And His Followers Saved Civilization"?
DH

 
 

sancho (sancho)
01-11-2006, 10:41 PM
If one cannot recognize a cult to be a cult one is either (1) profoundly stupid or (2) profoundly fearful.
Which is it, dumb or afraid?
Every LaRouche supporter has usually been fearful, and less often stupid - although that ratio appears to be changing with this new generation of Visigoths.
Here's some help - pick your own checklist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_checklist

 

sancho (sancho)
01-11-2006, 10:51 PM
P.S. Reading that extended exerpt above on the (dis)organizing is searingly pathetic: "In Alameda we showed up with our crazy signs and our crazy lit with our ratty card table all for our crazy Leader - and somebody walked up and talked to us! And then somebody gave us $10 because they didn't have their glasses on and promised to come to an Amelia event if there was an open bar! We're changing the world! Two other people later talked to us, 2!"
What a bunch of sick f's. I can't believe I ever fell for that crazy s.

 

dave72 (dave72)
01-12-2006, 09:47 AM
The word "cult" is thrown around as a pejorative like a**hole and fascist. All I can say is that you know a cult when you've been in one. It seems to be the consensus of the ex-members here that we were in a cult, however awkward it is to define. It is because of the whole "cult" aspect of the Larouche organization that this thread has been going so long and remains interesting.

 

sancho (sancho)
01-12-2006, 03:22 PM
I am not interested in participating in a debating academy. My only interest here is lest people - particularly young people - be drawn into a cult which I had belonged to and which I had quickly found nasty and brutish. (Unfortunately my stay was not also short.)
My wide scope of learning has been adequately demonstrated for years on these bulletin boards, if you take the time to wend down memory lane. Unlike Lyndon LaRouche, I am neither stupid nor fearful.
Best,
Sancho

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
01-12-2006, 03:58 PM
Dear Sancho,
So, in other words, you can't provide a critique of the ideas that the movement discusses. Derivatives, Gauss, negentropy, dirigist economics, you can't touch any of this, because as you mentioned earlier, you learned nothing profound in the movement.
All you can do against the ideas that power the movement is, like many a flamewarrior I've met before, craft endlessly novel permutations on the slander of the object of choice. That, or pull abrupt 90-degree turns of conversation when you hit a question you can't answer.
Prime Calculation: No further intelligent discourse or useful information can be gathered here.
What a limited imagination you have for investigating the truth!
Answer or not as you will, I will not be reading it.
DH
P.S. "Wide" does not equal "deep." You're not even a good Generalist!

 

sancho (sancho)
01-12-2006, 08:06 PM
Yes, then I can tour the country and debate representatives of the Flat Earth Society or of the late Ayn Rand or the people who think the special theory of relativity was a Jewish conspiracy and other cranks of your ilk. Special people. Only "special people" who require "special education" insist on the illogical claim that since one chooses not to engage the brain dead in extended banter they are therefore justified in their ignorance. Just as the bum who holds out an empty cup feels himself morally superior to every well-heeled person who avoids meeting his hungry eyes.
The fact remains however that it is your semiliterate, autodidactic god LaRouche who is undereducated, cannot brook any opposition, and is tolerant of no debate. There is an excellent essay on LaLush's intellectual dishonesty here
http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/george.html
I suggest you read it - if you are not hopelessly stupid and fearful.
For those of you reading this who may be drawn to LaRouche, please familiarize yourselves with the general features of any generic cult and then apply those criteria to your own experience with the LaRouche cult of personality and with the remarks of ex-members such as myself on FactNet. It is tempting to believe in the one-stop shopping for ideas, principles, and commitments LaRouche and his minions proffer - but just remember that the true goal is to enable Helga LaRouche to have enough money to purchase another thoroughbred horse. (I wonder who she's f-ing now, by the way?)
Lastly, I cannot get over how persistently childish the octogenarian LaRouche is to continue insisting on being the greatest mind since Leibniz. Get over it, bub. Anybody who buys that mularkey is a Grade A dingus. (And all the while his wife is out in the horse barn getting etc. by how many guys? DH or Grendon wouldn't be able to pull that off (so to speak) as they are eunuchs for the kingdom of starvation.)
(Message edited by sancho on January 12, 2006)

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
01-13-2006, 04:01 AM
I can provide everyone with a lesson to be learned over the question of whether you make real advances in the org or outside the org.
Enough time has elapsed that we have two different tracks of offspring from members to examine.
One group has their parents in Leesburg as mid 50 deadenders who have offered their children to Lyn. Those children are now travelling the country manning card table shrines. This new blood will be raising the money for Lyn and will be played against the older Leesburg crowd by Lyn.
Another group of children were born after their parents left the org in the early 1980's. This crowd has had quite a few awards in math competitions around the world. A few have won full scholorships in prestigious universities for their work (while in high school) and are now approaching PHD level sophistication.
Another batch has been in the top rankings in math and science exhibitions conducted by universites with regional high schools.
There are also a few high ranking offspring who are in the best US Military academies. Many gifted musicians and thinkers as well.
The difference is based on your life at a card table shrine and having your entire life be an insular shrine of Larouche, or being exposed to as many different ideas and sources as possible.
So it is not just the parents who have greatly expanded their lives when leaving, their kids have done so as well.
Our two top science people who left in the 80's after seeing some stuff they should have not seen have done really well.
When you use an HP printer you are using a technological patent he invented which makes it work.
When you see new health drugs released to deal with several serious ilnesses, the other guy's company does the R&D.
Finally, I do not think I ever told Steve this. The editor of Lyn for the publications has kept her son as far away from the org as possible. He is attending a major University in Maryland I believe.
xlcr4life

 

borisbad (borisbad)
01-24-2006, 11:54 AM
Reading the posts about the "organizing" (sic) on the West Coast really showed how pathetic the members search for confirmation of their ideas...i.e. somebody actually came over and talked to me and gave me some money". I remember well someone who would give money on some cute sign we used to have like "Feed Jane Fonda to the Whales" or "Nuclear Power Safer than Ted Kennedy's Car" or the ever popular "Roast Carter's Nuts" and we would fancifully think that because someone liked our particular sign that that meant they were going to sign up for the whole shebang of LaRouche nonsense...like thinking that because the Dems and the media are starting to raise some ruckus over things like the Abramoff scandal that all this came about because of LHL. Just like we stopped Brezhnev from nuking the US back in the 80s and stopped God knows how many economic crises from occurring.

 

sancho (sancho)
01-27-2006, 01:45 PM
I see DH and the gang have scooted away with their tails between their hind legs ...

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
01-27-2006, 04:13 PM
Take this little exerpt by Lyn here from our posted briefing.
"You can not find a simple arithmetic solution, for anything, in anything that is human. So therefore, you are correcting for the danger, you get on the one side, where somebody has an accounting mentality in mathematics, and thinks of mathematical physics like an accountant. They are useless people. They can be used for something, but they are not useful in science."
What Steve should know about this is that Lyn is not fooling when he says that he thinks accountants are useless people.
In the NYC National office on 304 W 58th st we had our finance office. Heading finance was a guy named Don Phau. Don loved Lyn so much that he went to prison for him. Don loved Lyn so much that I was told his marriage failed and his wife took the two kids and left him and the org. His wife was not about to sacrifice the kids to the card table shrine as Steve has.
Within finance we had two people with accounting experience RW and RY.
RW believed what Lyn said about accounting and proceeded to get himself into a mess of legal problems. It seems that the prosecutors accountants figured out really early that a lot of money vanished and we issued millions in promisorry notes which had no chance of being repaid.
RY was pretty smart in computers in the early 1980's and took a look at the books and tried to do a basic spread sheet for loans and repayments based on income and cash flow. The ancient Greeks without the benefit of a computer could have figured the obvious. There was no way that the money coming in as loans was ever going to be repaid. RY did a real cool thing to the org. We were all on another 24/7 mobe with phony assasination plots and TV time fundraising schemes to allow a any time off. RY just announced that he was going on a short vacation trip with his wife and would return soon. RY moved his apt lock, stock and barrel out of NYC and never came back. By the time someone asked where he was, he was long gone and had his hands clean of the impending indictments.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com
(Message edited by xlcr4life on January 27, 2006)

 

sancho (sancho)
01-27-2006, 10:28 PM
What amazes me is that anyone could read the real-life accounts of the organization by xlcr4life and others (many of which are so bizarre that no one could possibly make them up) and then continue to walk wide-eyed into the cynical arms of the organization, willing to be duped: "Here, Lyn, I believe everything you say about FDR, geometry, and Paolo Sarpi: take my mind, my will, my understanding ... my cash, my car, my student loan money ..." What amazes me even more is that a guy in his eighties should keep right on duping kids as if he (and they) were going to keep living forever. Whenever the old coot croaks, at least Helga won't have to be doing the "World's Greatest Lay Since Johnny Holmes" (the WGLSJH) out back behind the woodpile anymore and can come on in to use the bed of the recently deceased "World's Greatest Jailbird Since Socrates" (the WGJSS.)
(Message edited by sancho on January 28, 2006)

 

sancho (sancho)
01-28-2006, 05:17 PM
LaLush's most recent emetic exercise wherein he throws a lot of words out which are supposed to add up to something meaningful if not profound is entitled, "How to Capitalize a Recovery." It is becoming increasingly difficult to scan this spew as it is always the same sausage over and over and over again: here we see the famed "triple-collapse function" which is never derived, the same fetishism of "President Franklin D. Roosevelt" (emblematic of little Lyndy's days with mummy and daddy), the same Ciceronian O tempora, O mores stance (from a convicted felon and widely recognized cult leader), the same conspiracist bead-stringing with the bad beads all bad, and the good beads all wise and knowing (and fully anticipatory of LHL, Joonyah's "discoveries"), etc., etc., etc. There's even a photo of Hausfrau Helga shown ten years ago without aid of her girdle holding some Beijing students hostage while they presumably listen to the Mistress Hitleria talk about fast trains. Wheee.
This guy is the best show in town - seen from a distance. It will especially be fun to watch how the Hannania Barbera creatures go at it over the scraps of a lunatic's legacy once he soon kicks the bucket.
Stay tuned, kids.
(Message edited by sancho on January 28, 2006)

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
01-29-2006, 10:15 AM
There is another briefing some one sent to me awhile back which shows where Steve's money went. Besides lacking common sense, Steve will be lacking dollars and sense real soon.
Steve has no idea of how he is viewed by Lyn and Helga. Here is an exerpt from a Mainz Germany Cadre School before Steve left.
"Our problem, of course, the biggest problem we have in the Youth Movement is a lack of money. Not merely, because young guys don't get much money--that's stretching it somewhat, hmm? Because we can't {afford} to recruit them! We can't afford to support them! Otherwise, we'd have thousands! Including here. You want a 3,000 Youth Movement in Germany? We could do it. We could organize it, we could recruit it--no problem at all: Provided the money's available. And they don't take much; they work cheap! I don't know how long that's going to go on, though!"
After the speech, the motorcade takes Lyn and Helga to their German castle where a toast is made to the "Steves" of the world. Steve has become a very valuable commodity in the org. It seems that this site and justiceforjeremiah.com have attacted quite a few LYM inquiries. The org has lost enough yutes that Steve's ego will be inflated and Yale is now just memory.
While at the card table shrine I wish Steve well. He will be deployed with a deadender to show him the ropes and how to make signs. The dead ender will probably be in his or her late 50's. Take a long hard look Steve. That person has a copy of the first Dope Inc book. Ask to see it and turn to the chapter on the Protocals of Zion.
If you give us the name of your squad leader, perhaps we can give you some questions to ask. If the guy looks a little tired, remember that he has been working for 30 years for Lyn to "build the larouche Movement". Hell, the person may even remember when the paper was printed twice a week and EIR was on Good paper and mailed out.
I will try to send the NC call with Lyn in bits. It is hilarious because the call is a duplicate of every NC call we do when the money slows down.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
02-02-2006, 02:38 PM
From LAROUCHE PAC http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/press_releases_files/2006/060131_war_declaration.htm
"This past week's fight around the Samuel Alito nomination was a battle, not a war, testing the various forces' competence and readiness. Some in the Senate showed their mettle and have now come together as the hardcore of what the Biblical right wing would call a Gideon's Army. This was merely the first battle, and the war continues. We proved our mettle and that, in itself, is a true victory."
and it would not be Lyn without these words to end:
"The present world financial system is doomed. Either we return to the American System or we face a planetary New Dark Age. This is a fight that now cannot be avoided. You cannot choose whether or not to enter the war. The war has entered you."
Here is what the Lym actually did in DC. This is what you call an "intervention" in Larouche speak. We did this all of the time in the 1970's and usually knew about as much of a subject as these two Lymericks in DC.
LaRouche supporters disrupt Law School
by Ryan Holeywell
Senior News Editor
Issue date: 1/26/06
Article Tools: Page 1 of 1
Law School students and professors had a few unexpected visitors to their classes Wednesday, and they weren't guest lecturers.
Supporters of longtime presidential candidate and convicted felon Lyndon LaRouche intruded on two classes, professors and students said. For a group known for driving through campus questioning the Bush administration through a bullhorn, Wednesday's tactics were particularly brazen.
Law School professor Gregory Maggs said two LaRouche supporters came to his 2:30 to 3:30 class Wednesday. Because the class has 50 students, he was originally unsure if they were his students. He said the LaRouche supporters, a man and woman, started off politely, but then continually interrupted his class.
"I've never had this in 13 years of teaching," Maggs said. "I'm kind of glad this didn't turn into a major incident."

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
02-02-2006, 02:44 PM
"The first guy was saying something incoherent about (Supreme Court nominee Samuel) Alito and the Federalist Society," Maggs said.
He said his students wanted to move on, so he asked the man to leave, but then the woman kept interrupting class.
"I should have called security, I suppose, but I was hoping the problem would go away," Maggs said, adding that he will call security if he gets another visit.
Maggs is the adviser to the GW Law School's chapter of the Federalist Society, a "group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order," according to the national organization's Web site. He said the man mentioned that Maggs is a member. Maggs said the two were not obscene - just persistent.
"I'm glad nobody got hurt, and it was just a little unpleasant," Maggs said. "In a two-hour course, we only have so many days."
Maggs said the two handed him literature from "LaRouche PAC"titled "Children of Satan" after the class The mostly college-age supporters of Larouche, a perennial fringe Democratic candidate for president, visit campus usually at least once a week to skewer Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the rest of the administration.
The Hatchet called the LaRouche PAC's D.C. headquarters Wednesday after the incident. A member said his organization does not respond to media requests until after researching the publication and the article's author. He did not comment on the incident at the Law School.
Maggs said, "These people were harmless, but it is a little worrisome that people can just come off the street and wander into the classroom."
Maggs said Georgetown University's law school has an ID system, in which to get in, people must show identification and sign in.
Rich Murphy, a law student in Maggs' class and a former Hatchet editor in chief, said his class was originally receptive to the two demonstrators.
Murphy said, "We argue here, we learn how to argue, so at first people were a little bit receptive to the debate - it's amazing that the professor didn't even throw them out right away. He sort of engaged them a bit."

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
02-02-2006, 02:48 PM
Murphy said he wasn't impressed with the LaRouche supporters' knowledge of the legal system.
Murphy agreed that the intrusion could be a "possible problem in the future."
"It's kind of sad that these academic institutions are founded on new ideas, and to be on lockdown like that would be depressing," Murphy said.
LaRouche supporters also visited law professor Orrin Kerr's class Wednesday afternoon, Kerr said. He said he didn't have difficulty persuading the two supports to leave his class about the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans against unwarranted searches and seizures.
He said, "I put it to a class vote - we can either discuss Lyndon LaRouche and the Federalist Society, or we can discuss the Fourth Amendment. The LaRouchites lost the vote, and the students started chanting 'Fourth Amendment! Fourth Amendment!' and then the LaRouche members left."
Now you see how this charade works. You send the yutes on an intervention to change history. If you don't, civilization is doomed. Don't question why you dropped of school, just be a potent organiser and world historical figure. Never mind that your first job is keeping Lyn and Helga in comfort.
The comfort is doomed when the yutes do not man the card table shrines. Their college education is already doomed when you get to the table level.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com

 

sancho (sancho)
02-11-2006, 09:33 AM
For any prospective LaRouche member, I would have her/him ask the following questions of themselves: (1) does it make sense that any one person has ALL answers, no matter how "brilliant" he appears to be? (2) why does a group that espouses Socratic dialogue not brook any contradiction at all, nor even permit the reading of unorthodox authors unless to attack them? (3) is everything in life really black and white? if so, then why are rules around fund-raising so conveniently flexible?
Those are just some general considerations. LaRouche's logorrheic output can easily be challenged in a myriad of ways by even someone of moderate intelligence and learning. (1) LaRouche has been "predicting" global economic catastrophe for over FORTY years, through good times and bad: when is this apocalypse to come? and where does he get off claiming that he has a good economic forecasting record? (2) Conspiracy theories? We got 'em! Who is trying to kill Lyn today: go through the past thirty-three years of publications since Lyn's commonlaw wife, Carol White, ran off with a younger man. Is it the Cuban frogmen? The East Germans? The Rockefeller family? The British royal family? The Knights of Malta? The Venetians? The international oligarchic elites? The "Zionist cabal"? Opus Dei? The Society of Jesus? The Syndicalists? If you stick with LaRouche and want to get ahead in the company, I suggest trying to make a case for the World Council of Churches. It seems the people who rise to the top in the NCLC are those who concoct the most convincing fables regarding efforts to "get LaRouche." (3) Ask anyone in that group what they mean by "Dirichlet's Principle." Keep asking until you clearly understand what they are saying - and don't allow them to sidetrack you by calling you "blocked" or an "academic." As a matter of fact, if there is anything in their various presentations which you do not clearly understand, keep pressing them as Socrates would - you will be amazed at how very little any of them understand anything they're saying.
Good for you and me, Erin, that we have a weekend without the hateful task of manning a ratty cardtable shrine.
I will next repost the FACTNet criteria for a cult.

 

sancho (sancho)
02-11-2006, 09:35 AM
Common Properties of Potentially Destructive and Dangerous Cults
The cult is authoritarian in its power structure. The leader is regarded as the supreme authority. He or she may delegate certain power to a few subordinates for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to the leader's wishes and roles. There is no appeal outside of his or her system to greater systems of justice. For example, if a school teacher
feels unjustly treated by a principal, appeals can be made. In a cult, the leader claims to have the only and final ruling on all matters.
The cult's leaders tend to be charismatic, determined, and
domineering. They persuade followers to drop their families, jobs, careers, and friends to follow them. They (not the individual) then take over control of their followers' possessions, money, lives.
The cult's leaders are self-appointed, messianic persons who claim to have a special mission in life. For example, the flying saucer cult leaders claim that people from outer space have commissioned them to lead people to special places to await a space ship.
The cult's leaders center the veneration of members upon themselves. Priests, rabbis, ministers, democratic leaders, and leaders of genuinely altruistic movements keep the veneration of adherents focused on God, abstract principles, and group purposes. Cult leaders, in contrast, keep the focus of love, devotion, and allegiance on themselves.
The cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of the behavior of its members. Cults are likely to dictate in great detail what members wear, eat, when and where they work, sleep, and bathe-as well as what to believe, think, and say.

 

sancho (sancho)
02-11-2006, 09:37 AM
The cult tends to have a double set of ethics. Members are urged to be open and honest within the group, and confess all to the leaders. On the other hand, they are encouraged to deceive and manipulate outsiders or nonmembers. Established religions teach members to be honest and truthful to all, and to abide by one set of ethics.
The cult has basically only two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising. Established religions and altruistic movements may also recruit and raise funds. However, their sole purpose is not to grow larger; such groups have the goals to better the lives of their members
and mankind in general. The cults may claim to make social
contributions, but in actuality these remain mere claims, or gestures. Their focus is always dominated by recruiting new members and fund-raising.
The cult appears to be innovative and exclusive. The leader claims to be breaking with tradition, offering something novel, and instituting the only viable system for change that will solve life's problems or the world's ills. While claiming this, the cult then surreptitiously uses systems of psychological coercion on its members to inhibit their
ability to examine the actual validity of the claims of the leader and the cult.
http://www.factnet.org/rancho5.htm
And see, www.justiceforjeremiah.com (http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com)

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
02-12-2006, 10:04 AM
AS time marches on the wild dichotomy (We loved this word in the org) between current dead enders and their former friends who left grows wider every year.
We now have cases where a current member, in their late 50's is still in a small office fundraising and recruiting for Lyn like he or she has done for the past 25 years.
Meanwhile, a few miles away will be former members who left 25 years ago. The differences are startling in some aspects. Current dead enders will try to sell subs to 21st Century and hope that an issue is mailed on time. They will talk about the Larouche plan for space. In a Washington DC hotel, or in other venues across the world, Bob Zubrin will be addressing his org, the Mars Society on current Nasa spending and research goals. Zubrin will be involved in planning missions, doing research and getting some patents. The dead enders will ask for 25 bucks on the credit card.
Another dead ender will talk about Larouche Economics while across town, a former member with a PHD is involved in drafting legislation and doing research for a prior administrations economic task force.
This is going on all of the time. Our slogan used to be "Die for Rockeffeller or take power with Larouche".
For the deadenders it is now "Die for Larouche and have no imaginary powers"
I truly wish the best for members who left and are thinking of leaving. It is never too late. However, when you are 55, with no kids, no schooling, no skills for this economy and no savings, it is bleak. Many in Leesburg have just shrugged their shoulders and have taken part time jobs to stay in a Larouche limbo so to speak.
I would suggest to Erin and others to find this book and read it. It is very short and easy. The many areas where the larouche cult is like any other cult is startling. I never wish for bad for any Larouche member as I understand what they are going through. Some of the other hard core bums I could care less because of the hurt they caused.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0892813113/102-1939057-0231314?v=glance&n=283155
xlcr4life@hotmail.com

 

kheris (kheris)
02-14-2006, 04:02 AM
Has anyone else noticed that there is no announcement of a President's Day Conference? Only a notice that Larouche is doing a webcast on 2/23?

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
02-14-2006, 06:50 PM
The first conclusion I came to is that Steve has not hit quota at the card table shrine. Or, his parents have kept the tuition check.
We have conferences for a few main reasons.
-Lyn needs to morph the org into something else. Best example is the Jan 74 conference with the Chris White brainwash fabrication to create mass paranoia. 1979 Detroit conf. was to change org from leftists beggers to right wing fundraisers.
-you have a good catch of future cadre you want to recruit. If the prospects are low, wait for next crop.
-You need to erase bad memories of org past and burnt out supporters with new contacts and rewriting of history. Conferences never discuss lunacy of what we do, but how the last group which dropped out were all agents or brainwashed.
ALL conferences establish Lyn as absolute with no room for questioning why we are now this or that. Rocky in, Rocky out, Strategy for Socialism in then out, the American System in.
In addition, you need some big money marks or supporters like a Beltran to pull of a Potemkin Village org.
Conferences cost big money. You need to fly in members, house them, feed them and rent facilities. You usually announce a security "crisis" and take the money earmarked for this and siphon it to something else.
You also lose a few days of fudraising before and after the event. The org has fewer recruits and less cash as people find this and other sites very informative.

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
02-14-2006, 06:53 PM
When we had our Potemkin village in Leesburg, we could fly in the money marks from all over to meet with Lyn at the big house. Members would act as servants and minstrels while Lyn was on his best behaviour.
The wine flowed freely as big money marks were being flown in and signed over a lot of money to finance real estate projects woth us. They all lost their mney I think and the property was taken away.
During the conference, most leadership was denounced by Lyn as it made the members think that only Lyn knew what to do and we were not in power because of the faults of so and so.
Best highlite for me was in Reston when Lyn was running for office and called the candidate who accuses the Queen of England of running drugs. Lyn would deny that he said that at every interview. During the conference he announced that "Of course the Queen is a drug runner"
Next moment of history for us was Lyn announcing that since the world economy was going to collapse, members were foolish to have children and we are too busy saving the world to think about families. Years later Lyn dances into Leesburg office with news that HIS son Danny, who is NOT in the org announced the birth of Lyn's grand child.
Its all yours Steve. Work harder.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com

 

sancho
03-18-2006, 04:33 PM
Excellent Wikipedia entry on _The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_, which LaRouchites at one time openly adduced as evidence of a Jewish conspiracy, (v. the infamous first edition of _Dope, Inc._):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

 

borisbad
03-20-2006, 02:19 PM
The philosophy of the "dead enders" vs. the Baby boomers reminds me very much of how Mao used the Red Guard youth to quash any type of dissent within the Chinese Communist Party and the population as a whole, branding intellectuals, political figures, bureaucrats and every one who didn't support the nihilistic urges of the Red Guard as reactionaries, etc. On a much smaller scale the parallels are pretty clear.

 

sancho
03-30-2006, 05:56 PM
One of the many services these FACTNet LaRouche discussion boards provides is clear evidence of the poverty and impotence of LaRouche and his putative "ideas." This and related boards supply as much of an even playing field for LaRouchites and their antagonists as possible, a field that is that does not permit for tongue lashings at card table shrines outside of post offices, or for back-room "debriefings" by sociopathic National Committee members who attempt to break you down emotionally so that you can make an extra fifty dollars a day. Look at the number of hit-and-run LaRouche losers who have thought they could come on here and either strongarm their way to their truth or, in the most cowardly fashion a la Grendon or Hegel, to engage in "discussion" - a discussion always predicated upon one or another manifestation of LaRouche's dementia - in order to weasel their way to their truth. A really despicable bunch, I should say, as these exchanges bear witness for the next poor soul who comes along attracted to the quite rational aims of stopping the war in Iraq, promoting classical culture, or supporting scientific progress, but who then finds himself or herself before they know it out of school, up to their ears in debt, and squandering their youth next to ratty card tables with nonsensical millennarian signs. Where are all of you valiant spokepeople for the LaRouchian way of life? Why post ye here no longer? hahahahaha

 

timefor_truth
06-07-2007, 09:52 PM
OK I have read plenty here this is a very elaborate devious trick indeed whether it is intentional or accidental. The trap is one of deduction. I will explain what too many from the LYM fall trap into as they walk into this domain of self perpetuated deceit!
Any and all X members are such because they really did not learn one key fundamental. How to come to understand something to be true! Do you take popular opinion? All those opinions CANT POSSIBLY BE WRONG, right? How about the accumulation of a whole bunch of facts that will get to the truth right? Because the simple tally of more facts will show an aggregation of evidence which always leads us in the right direction? Right?
Lets say we dont have telescopes and are living in the time of the ancients. We in an investigation step outside and collect an aggregation of facts (i.e. observations) of the sun in the sky, From When the sun rises to when it falls. We have compiled a twelve hour data sheet. Our senses demonstrate as well as the massive accumulation of facts that the sun rotates around the earth? are we right?
The problem is merely one that is an elementary one. Instead of taking someone's word Whether Larouche's or anyone else's one has to investigate where that person got their understanding and knowledge from, and whether that source had their investigation set in the real universe. Also what is the history of where that person understood what they did?
Since the real universe is invisible (Because ideas like gravity and Universal least action are every where in the universe) to the senses, how does one comprehend something invisible, use the invisible part of what makes you human. What is that? Read Plato! Lyndon H. Larouche calls such a process willfull and conscious "Acts of re-discovery"
One then has to realize the type of things the road down this particular path will ultimately take you, is into the realm of philosophy, and metaphysics. In that area one learns the 'parallel pathways' that certain key policies and ideas today run alongside. This is how we as TRUE understander s can place Larouche's reasoning and analytical skills at the forefront of science and political economy. Not because we are blind as soooo many have purportedly fallacious stated but because those who have done their own independent work come to understand, what many pass as 'code speak' whenever Larouche speaks!
Every single X member who has walked into this forum has fallen prey to ultimately that. They have read Lyndon Larouche's words but don't understand how he reached them. Therefore no matter what they themselves can profess as good intentions and good sounding policies, they fall short in then re-connecting that to the invisible in a transcendent way.
They then make further folly with trying to DEDUCTIVELY explain away their REASONING! The example of Kheris is far too appalling! She asserts what she asserts with relative ease of words. She truly has some issues to grapple with. Her claims along with all who negatively attack Larouche have no real intention to find out the truth or they would have asked Lyn themselves Here Is a Link! asklarouche@larouchepac.com

 

timefor_truth
06-07-2007, 09:54 PM
The XLC er and other similar types are highly laughable! They tell you all they come from the inside and have an understanding of how certain aspects of the organization are run then drop a lot a bit of fiction, no that was too kind LIES, then you all eat it up! None of you have gone through a process of understanding to see how these Naysayers got to their conclusions!
I wont even address the Naysayers themselves the reason is simply one does not try to dialogue with Satan!
The only people that I am concerned about are those poor souls who really do think Larouche runs a cult and are being massively deceived. When it is them who unfortunately are deceived because they can so readily talk about something and they really don't KNOW (meaning comprehension of origin)about!
Lastly remember, If you are truly intent on understanding what Larouche is saying stop taking second hand opinions! Go back and read what he says and then see where he got that then see what you gain from where he got what he talks about! Read Kepler because he starts with the exploration in reality in a REAL way. Then move to read what Larouche says about Kepler.
It is a longer process but that is what it takes to begin to say 1 tenth of what has been posted here since 2003! Remember if opinions are •••••••• cause everyone's got one, then stop getting "sloppy" second hand •••••••• because thats pretty disgusting!
Ask Lyn about Anti semitism and bring him quotes, then post discussion here if your really honest
asklarouche@larouchepac.com But I think we know the devilish intention of others!

 

timefor_truth
06-07-2007, 09:57 PM
That right there is the principle for every single post in this heaven where only darkness resides!
No one here seems to know or can bring to the surface a fundamental flaw. That is where they are found, fundamental flaws only when that work has been done to decipher the intricate work that comes with the pursuit of truth!
My misguided brethren who so quickly render the blame upon those they don't understand ascend unto true understanding from doing hard core work. Work that goes into history looking for invisible things the only things that are really existent because they remain when all the perceptible things wax and wane!

 

earnest_one
06-09-2007, 09:21 AM
LaRouche and company rail against deductive reasoning yet they attempt to use it, when needed/desired. The whole "method" is pure sophistry.
Creative reason is simply a slogan invented by LaRouche so that he can masturbate in public.
"Look at my creative reason... Look, Look, Look at me (mommy)."
It is all pre-adolescent drivel, albeit without the precious juices.

 

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

Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on July 21, 2012, at 04:21 PM