Why Lyndon LaRouche is a fraud!

Statement on Jeremiah Duggan

2011-05-28T08:06:00.006+02:00

With this article I am urging more ex-members to step forward. Do it however you want, but just DO IT! One good way is to post a statement on the factnet or at a personal blog, as I do.

***

I was at the LaRouche-conference 2003, where Jeremiah Duggan participated too. I spent two days at the youth conference afterwards, and then I went back home to Sweden.

The night before Jeremiah died, or perhaps two days before I spoke to him.

At the conference he had voiced his opinion about several things, among them that he wondered whyt many of the people the movement were attacking were Jewish, but also why so many "enemies" were Brittish. The movement said that Sharon was "fascist" and he wondered if that was not antisemitic to say such a thing..

On the night I saw him in a very heated exchange with some of the french and american LYM (LaRouche Youth Movement members) at the youth hostel in Wiesbaden, where I too was staying. The exchange I listened to had to do with if the world could be changed or not, if humans are good or not. Duggan were of the opinion that mankind was evil and that ist was not possible to change the world to the better. He was clearly in a bad shape. Almost crying. The LYM told him not to be psychosexually impotent. They yelled at him that he was not "serious" about his life..

He left the discussion (or the Lym left him, I cant remember). I went up to him to calm him down and see what I could do. I was already at that time on my way to leave the organization and did not like the way new "recruits" were put under psychological pressure. I simply asked him what HE thought about things and let him speak.

First he voiced his worries about antisemitism, but added that that was no BIG problem. The biggest problem with the LaRouche-organization was that it was so "optimistic" that it believed that it could change the world. He told me that he had decided to visit the conference because the conference had an Anti-racist, anti-war and were opposed to "the conservative revolution" in The USA. But all this optimism about mankind and the nature of man that the LaRouchemovent apparently stood for, made him disturbed. It reminded him of a cult, he told me.

That REALLY freaked him out, because his view was different. He explained that he believed that mankind was evil and that the earth was the hell of another universe, a kind of giantic prisonhouse. Mankind are here to SUFFER, he told me. God is not a good God, but God is the devil.

This is what I remember.

My conclusion after the discussion with him was that he was on the verge of a mental breakdown. A breakdown that partly had to do with his very "black" and pessimistic worldview but mostly had to do with the methods the LaRouche cult used to try to recruit him and persuade him to join the cult.7

(I spoke to Poul Rasmussen from Denmark about my worries about him afterwards.)

After the death of Duggan the cult ordered an halt to all internal discussion about this. All obeyed! And that was one of the reasons I got mad at the organization. The things that happened was obviously problematic for the cult.

That is my statement.

/Torbjörn J.
May 28, 2011

--------------------------------------

PS

To get a sense of hos I view it, I will add one relevant letters where I write things that I have forgotten by now.

1)

From a letter to an anti-LaRouche activist, 2009.

I do not know what happened later but know that beating opponents was NOT a part of the cultmethods at the time. (That does not exclude that he was beaten. There could have been a fight with individual members or something could have happened that made him angry. Remember that he was on the verge of a mental breakdown the night (?) before.) My view is still that he either committed suicide or had a breakdown and did not know what he was doing. (THAT IS MY OPINION!)

In retorspective my view is that he was most probably recruited in the way nearly all new recruits are recruited. he was recruited to come to the conference because it wanted to change the world.

When at the conference two things combined. First that he reacted to
the cultmethods in the organization, especially the false optimism of it. Secondly, the false optimism of the organization made him suffer a crisis, because his basic worldview was pessimistic: i.e. the world is evil, god is evil, the earth a prisonhouse, etc...

I am a bit unsure what happened then. Often when a new contact comes to a conference he or she continues to be provoced by the difference between what is said by the movement, and what some people call the movement (nazi, etc). Often they will voice their critizism in the open at the conference. The notes of Duggan, shows that this happened, and I can confirm that he reacted and asked if it is not antisemitic to
say that some jews, like Sharon, are fascist.

It is not true that opposition is seen as negative immediately. At a youth conference it is recepted in two ways. Either as good, because it is an opposition of a person that can be persuaded to be a hardcore member (Many fulltimers, old as well as LYM has had doubts, and expressed them in public at conferences, at first), or it is seen as a threath, because it desorganizes other potential recruits.

My impression at the time was that he was treated according to the first group. I remember that I spke to some people after the intervention Duggan made, and they saw it as fruitful (this could have changed later on, I dont know about that).

At the evening (I at least think it was this evening) I spoke to Duggan for some time. he talked about his fear about antisemitism, but confessed that it did not seem probable. The big thing he reacted on that evening was the OPTIMISM. he said that the organization is wrong because it believes that mankind is good and that politics can change the world to the better. His basic worldview was pessimistic: i.e. the world is evil, god is evil, the earth a prisonhouse, etc...

He talked about this for so long that I came to the conclusion that Duggan might be one person that has planned or plans to commit suicide. He is not stable. Ther older members I spoke later to said that "we know that, and have talked about it". Just before we talked he had gone through an "egostripping" session... 6 LYM:ers from France and the US stood around him and all "discussed" his opposing arguments and that tries to persuade him that he is wrong!

We talked about Shakespear instead for some time, and talked about his worldview, and then we parted.

On the day after or two days after, I left to Stockholm, and when I came there I heard that he had committed suicide. Probably two days after we met. I dont know what happened with him during these days...

I believe that the LYM made a demonstration at downtown Franfkurt or Wiesbaden one of these days. If so, it would have been during that demonstration/booktable deployment that someone made antisemitic remarks against him (I believe J tennenbaum told the mother that this had happened once.). Most probably that happened. Some old antisemites used to attack the jews inside the movement. I have seen that happen several times.

That a new LYM recruit is exposed to this kind of violent "attacks" (to use the LaRouchian language) during a deployment, is seen as good. But considering the state he was in I think that this was disasterous for him. I did not participate at the demonstration/rally, I think I was at the office doing intelligence work that day.

I cant remember everything. Some years has passed since the conference. But I want you to know the things I know! The dating might be other than what I have told, this is my picture of it.

And it was no antisemitic/nazi conference, not even a coded one! :o) It was a conference by a conspiratorical harmageddon cult, that wanted to recruit
people based on false optimism!

Six years after the conference, at a time when many, or even the majority, of the participants has left the organization after realizing that it is a dangerous totalitarian cult. Perhaps one would be able to get them to speak out if one treaded the cult more like a cult?

http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-duggan-campaign-why-alienate.html

http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.com/2009/03/more-on-jeremiah-duggan.html

/T

On Jeremiah Duggan

2011-05-27T09:54:00.006+02:00

A quick comment on Jeremiah Duggan. Just for the record.

I maintain that the LaRouchemovement is a CULT, especially the youth movement and the U.S. branch of the movement. I also maintain that I believe that the methods the cult used, and still uses, (social control, etc) led to the death of Jeremiah.

He most probably had a breakdown of some kind and the "organizers" of the movement most probably scared the shit out of him, not too uncommon when youngsters get involved with cults.

The reason I know is that I was there and spoke to him the day before, or two days before, and he did NOT feel well. And the young LaRoucheorganizers where pushing him more to the brink, with the demand that he should agree on everything, stop being "psychiologically impotent", and "join" the movement fulltime.

As I repeatedly have told the mother to Jeremiah, the police is free to contact me, anytime! But, please remember, that the story I have to tell, is what I saw and what I knew, and it is not something weird about a "nazi-conspiracy"!

/T

Don Veitch book, Beyond Common Sense

2011-05-18T07:59:00.005+02:00

Don Veitch book, beyond Common Sense, is available on the internet.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55699439/Beyond-Common-sense

The Danger In LaRouche Psycho-Politics.

Lifton’s words are appropriate:

“Rather than stimulating greater receptivity and
‘openness to the world,’they encourage a backward
step into some form of ‘embededness’- a retreat into
doctrinal and organisational exclusiveness, and into
all-or-nothing emotional pattems more characteristic...
of the child than the individual adult “ (page 436)

“And if no peak experience occurs,
ideological totalism does even greater violence to the human
potential, it evokes destructive emotion, produces
intellectual and psychological constriction and deprives
man of all that is most...
and imaginative - under the
false promise of eliminating these very imperfections
and ambivalence which help to define the human
condition. This combination of personal closure, self
destructiveness, and hostility towards outsiders leads
to the dangerous group excesses so characteristic of
ideological totalism in any form.It also mobilises
extremist tendencies in those outsiders under attack,
thus creating a vicious circle of totalism.

Drawing Hitler mustaches on pictures of Barack Obama

2010-11-05T15:49:00.005+01:00

Reading about the recent elections in the USA, and the Tea party, I notice that the LaRouche movement has had one great impact upon the current US political debate.

The LaRouchies introduced the habit of comparing Obama with Hitler. The were the once who first drew Hitler mustaches on pictures of Barack Obama.

Now many of the the tea party activists are doing the same thing, drawing Hitler mustaches on Barack Obama!

That is the kind of things that happen when the LaRouche "Democrats" show their "democratic" face.

/T

The end of the world did not happen... again!

2010-10-20T05:42:00.003+02:00

It seems like good ol' Lyndon did it again. He predicted that not later than October this year the financial system would collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YilMhuiqBEo

He has certainly predicted these kinds of things before. Just read this:

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Cult.FcrasH

Unfortunately the police did a great mistake when they raided the offices of the LaRouchemovement around 1987. They seized the archives of the offices. That means that it is a bit hard for the youngsters in LaRouches-no-longer-so-young-movement (LYM) to read the old issues of New Fed of EIR. But I would recommend that they do so if possible.

They would find that Lyndon has predicted "with 100% certainty" tha crash of the financial system several times. Why did the system not crash in 1970, 1975, 1977, 1980, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1994, 1995 etc?

Lyndon LaRouche makes Jehovas Witnesses look sane in comparison, After all they have only been so stupid, as to claim that the world would collapse at a fixed date, about four times in a century. Lyndon has done so about forty times in 60 years!!!

Please compare Lyndon with the witnesses:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness8.htm

/Torbjörn

PS

Yes, I am back. I will keep this blog alive.

Not that active for the moment...

2010-03-23T10:26:00.001+01:00

Please excuse that I am not so active at the moment, and that my blog is not updated. I am busy with something called: LIFE! Something the members in the LaRouchecult should try too. Life is wonderful!

/European

The truth about LaRouches campaign for "better" healthcare...

2009-06-18T08:33:00.002+02:00

The signature "Eaglebeak" posted this on the Factnet recently. Bear in mind that LaRouche uses the same method INSIDE the organization that he calls "nazi-economics" when talking about the US government!

/T

------------------------

Boom (er) Bust

Overheard in Giant

You might call it gossip, if it were more light-hearted. But it's really pretty grim.

I have heard several reports around town recently about members in their 50s--people who have been in the organization since their college days--being thrown off insurance.

This includes:

People with chronic, debilitating diseases

People who went to prison for LaRouche, for Pete's sake

People who haven't held a real job in their whole adult lives, and are too sick (and unskilled) to get them now

People with thousands of dollars per annum in prescription drug bills

They're old, they're expensive--why, some may even be losing their passion for Lyn's Kampf--

So whoosh! Out they go!

What I can't figure out is how Lyn, crowding 87, thinks he's still younger than springtime.

The pictures on LPAC, when the Youth "LPAC editors" are dumb enough to put them up, certainly give that fantasy the lie.

I can't figure out how the "Boomer" members can put up with the obvious fear and loathing Lyn exhibits towards them.

But then I remember.... It's spelled C-U-L-T. The Soviets had their Prolet-kult, Bismarck had his Kult-ur-kampf,, but all that's left to Lyn is the Kult.

No Uncle Joe or Iron Chancellor he.

The double standards of Lyndon LaRouche's cult: health care!

2009-06-09T10:02:00.004+02:00

Double standards is always a sign that something is wrong, in "normal" politics and religion as well as in cults, like the LaRouchemovement.

However, double standards can also empower a person that is in a cult to think for themselves! The American cult expert Steven Hassan ( http://www.freedomofmind.com/ ) writes in his books that it is very often the double standards that helps people leave a cult. When they see that the methods of the cult is another one than the teachings of the cult it is an alarm-bell, and it CAN make the cultmember think about what the heck he or she is doing.

I had many such double standards that helped me when I decided to stop bullshitting and leave the LaRouchemovement. For example:

* The cult claimed to be against "labor intensive work" (slave labor) but depite this the central parts of the cult (especially in the USA) worked seven days a week with the cult for more than twelve hours a day (except sunday, when they worked less), almost for nothing!

* LaRouche claims to base his method on HYPOTHESIS, and claims that no human can know the absolute truth, depite that LaRouche himself in EVERY speech and article claims that his worldview is THE truth, and it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to find one single hypothesis in any of his "scientific works" ("Hypothesis non fingo", to be blunt!)

* Since LaRouche holds the truth, no opposition is allowed and people can be subjected to harch attacks for doing such "outrageous" things as listening to Beatles of Elvis! (=i.e. the movement is NOT agapic, as it claims)

* This last thing means that the organization is dualistic, manichean, even if it claims to dialike dualism and manichean thinking. Everything is black and white, good and evil... And there are no greyscales and no colours...

All current members should look at the campaign for the healthcare in the USA. It is claimed that Obama is like Hitler because his health care reform is like the nazi genocidial program to "eliminate useless eaters" (disabled for example).

This is how Nancy Spannaus descibes it in the June 12 EIR:

"The Obama team showed no shame. Again and again, burnished under a patina of bureaucratic jargon, they demanded hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts for the most vulnerable of American citizens, insisted upon stopping so-called unnecessary medical care for as much as a third of the American population, and put their version of fiscal health before the lives of people. While they brazenly pour trillions of dollars of Federal monies into the very banking institutions which have brought the world economy to its knees, they tell American citizens, particularly those on Medicare and Medicaid, that they are "overconsuming" health care, and have to be stopped, "for their own good.""

I have no opinion on the US health care reforms and Obama, I know too little, but this much I can say: There is much that is wrong with it and I know for sure that some jerks in power believe that it is too expensive to help all people. That is not only wrong, it is also bad economics. I agree on that!

But before attacking others the movement should perhaps look at its internal policy!

My question to all that are members in the LaRouchemovement is if you have an insurance that is the best possible? Do all youngsters that join the movement immediately get an insurance that covers all? And is the families insured too, as is the case with many, many insurances in the USA.

Off course it is not!

People that have left the LaRouchemovement in the USA can tell that it is not so. The organization pays the most basic health care, but the insurances, if they even exist, are the cheapest and simpliest possible!

And this winter there was a big debate in Leesburg (the HQ for the cult) because the movement actually decided that family members that are no longer members of the cult or cannot work with the cult (for medical reason) should not get medical help, in the form of insurances for the family, from the cult.

And people that suffer some medical problem because he or she is sitting in a dusty office eight (!) days a week, it is not automaticly so that the working conditions are improved and the cultmember gets help. No, not at all!

So, why attacking Obama when you first should attack Lyndon and get a health care that is ok, not like today when the health care "insurances" and working conditions are so lousy that only other employers that use "labor intensive work" (slave labor) can be compared to it!

And... Lyndon LaRouche recently claimed that abortion is wrong and some kind of murder! Well... EVERY OLDER MEMBER OF THE CULT KNOWS WHAT PRACTICES THE CULT USED UP UNTIL THE 80s! It was abortion, abortion, abortion! The cult does not like children, that is a FACT!

If you still believe in the movements campaign for health care, you should begin by kicking LaRouches butt, not by attacking Obama!

/T

Is the LaRouchemovement a cult? Check out Dr. Robert J. Lifton's criterias for what a cult is.

2009-06-08T14:38:00.002+02:00

DR. ROBERT J. LIFTON'S CRITERIA FOR THOUGHT REFORM
THOUGHT REFORM: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF TOTALISM
CHAPTER 22
(Chapel Hill, 1989)
THE FUTURE OF IMMORTALITY
CHAPTER 15 (New York 1987)

Any ideology -- that is, any set of emotionally-charged convictions
about men and his relationship to the natural or supernatural world
-- may be carried by its adherents in a totalistic direction. But
this is most likely to occur with those ideologies which are most
sweeping in their content and most ambitious or messianic in
their claim, whether a religious or political organization. And
where totalism exists, a religion, or a political movement becomes
little more than an exclusive cult.

Here you will find a set of criteria, eight psychological themes against
which any environment may be judged. In combination, they create an
atmosphere which may temporarily energize or exhilarate, but which at the
same time pose the gravest of human threats.

(BRIEF OUTLINE)

1. MILIEU CONTROL

the most basic feature is the control of human communication within
and environment if the control is extremely intense, it becomes
internalized control -- an attempt to manage an individual's inner
communication control over all a person sees, hears, reads, writes
(information control)
creates conflicts in respect to individual autonomy
groups express this in several ways: Group process, isolation from
other people, psychological pressure, geographical distance or
unavailable transportation, sometimes physical pressure
often a sequence of events, such as seminars, lectures, group
encounters, which become increasingly intense and increasingly
isolated, making it extremely difficult-- both physically and
psychologically--for one to leave.
sets up a sense of antagonism with the outside world; it's us
against them
closely connected to the process of individual change (of personality)

2. MYSTICAL MANIPULATION (Planned spontaneity)

extensive personal manipulation
seeks to promote specific patterns of behavior and emotion in such
a way that it appears to have arisen spontaneously from within the
environment, while it actually has been orchestrated
totalist leaders claim to be agents chosen by God, history, or
some supernatural force, to carry out the mystical imperative
the "principles" (God-centered or otherwise) can be put forcibly and
claimed exclusively, so that the cult and its beliefs become the only
true path to salvation (or enlightenment)
the individual then develops the psychology of the pawn, and
participates actively in the manipulation of others
the leader who becomes the center of the mystical manipulation (or
the person in whose name it is done) can be sometimes more real than
an abstract god and therefore attractive to cult members
legitimizes the deception used to recruit new members and/or raise
funds, and the deception used on the "outside world"

3. THE DEMAND FOR PURITY

the world becomes sharply divided into the pure and the impure, the
absolutely good (the group/ideology) and the absolutely evil
(everything outside the group)
one must continually change or conform to the group "norm"
tendencies towards guilt and shame are used as emotional levers for
the group's controlling and manipulative influences
once a person has experienced the totalist polarization of good/evil
(black/white thinking), he has great difficulty in regaining a more
balanced inner sensitivity to the complexities of human morality
the radical separation of pure/impure is both within the environment
(the group) and the individual
ties in with the process of confession -- one must confess when one
is not conforming

4. CONFESSION

cultic confession is carried beyond its ordinary religious, legal
and therapeutic expressions to the point of becoming a cult in itself
sessions in which one confesses to one's sin are accompanied by
patterns of criticism and self-criticism, generally transpiring within
small groups with an active and dynamic thrust toward personal change
is an act of symbolic self-surrender
makes it virtually impossible to attain a reasonable balance between
worth and humility
a young person confessing to various sins of pre-cultic existence can
both believe in those sins and be covering over other ideas and
feelings that s/he is either unaware of or reluctant to discuss
often a person will confess to lesser sins while holding on to other
secrets (often criticisms/questions/doubts about the group/leaders
that may cause them not to advance to a leadership position)
"the more I accuse myself, the more I have a right to judge you"

5. SACRED SCIENCE

the totalist milieu maintains an aura of sacredness around its basic
doctrine or ideology, holding it as an ultimate moral vision for the
ordering of human existence
questioning or criticizing those basic assumptions is prohibited
a reverence is demanded for the ideology/doctrine, the originators of
the ideology/doctrine, the present bearers of the ideology/doctrine
offers considerable security to young people because it greatly
simplifies the world and answers a contemporary need to combine a
sacred set of dogmatic principles with a claim to a science embodying
the truth about human behavior and human psychology

6. LOADING THE LANGUAGE

the language of the totalist environment is characterized by the
thought-terminating cliche (thought-stoppers)
repetitiously centered on all-encompassing jargon
"the language of non-thought"
words are given new meanings -- the outside world does not use the
words or phrases in the same way -- it becomes a "group" word or
phrase

7. DOCTRINE OVER PERSON

every issue in one's life can be reduced to a single set of principles
that have an inner coherence to the point that one can claim the
experience of truth and feel it
the pattern of doctrine over person occurs when there is a conflict
between what one feels oneself experiencing and what the doctrine or
ideology says one should experience
if one questions the beliefs of the group or the leaders of the group,
one is made to feel that there is something inherently wrong with them
to even question -- it is always "turned around" on them and the
questioner/criticizer is questioned rather than the questions answered
directly
the underlying assumption is that doctrine/ideology is ultimately more
valid, true and real than any aspect of actual human character or
human experience and one must subject one's experience to that "truth"
the experience of contradiction can be immediately associated with guilt
one is made to feel that doubts are reflections of one's own evil
when doubt arises, conflicts become intense

8. DISPENSING OF EXISTENCE

since the group has an absolute or totalist vision of truth, those who
are not in the group are bound up in evil, are not enlightened, are not
saved, and do not have the right to exist
"being verses nothingness"
impediments to legitimate being must be pushed away or destroyed
one outside the group may always receive their right of existence by
joining the group
fear manipulation -- if one leaves this group, one leaves God or loses
their transformation, for something bad will happen to them
the group is the "elite", outsiders are "of the world", "evil",
"unenlightened", etc.

From the factnet: Lyndon LaRouche and the double standards on Obama

2009-06-06T06:28:00.008+02:00

The LaRouchemovement views Obama as a new Hitler, so once again... The contrast between what the movement claims that it aims for, and what it does, or says about Obama is, is striking!

This thing was posted by "poe" on the Factnet last night! I want to share it with you! ( http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showpost.php?p=379425&postcount=2279 )

/T

****************************************************************

POST #2279 06-05-2009, 04:07 PM poe

Yesterday the President of the United States of America gave a speech in Egypt, the country where Schiller claims Monotheism was born. In that speech, the President:

1) Called for a Dialogue of Civilizations between Islam and the West.

2) Spoke of that which unifies the three great monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

3) Called for a Two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestine dispute.

4) Taught about how the Arab Renaissance helped produce the European Renaissance.

5) Demanded a halt to the building of Israeli Settlements in Palestinian Territory.

6) Reminded the world that the United States was born out of a war against Empire.

7) Called the United States a historical force for progress in the world.

8) Called for removing all combat troops from Iraq by 2012.

9) Stated that a day to day improvement in the economic life of the Palestinians is necessary for the security of Israel.

10) Preached about how Non-Violent methods are the best means fot achieving political change.

and

11) Upheld the fundemental right of all nations, even Islamic ones, to the Peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Now, all eleven of these things were things that we were fighting for back when I was a member of the Labor Committees. So , after the speech, I went to all of the LaRouche websites to try to see what The Organization was saying about it. But all I could find there was posters of the President with mustaches scribbled on them, and video clips of children cussing.

Have fun! :o)

2009-06-04T20:14:00.009+02:00

First go to the "LaRouche memo-generator". Here you can generate random "internal memos" from LaRouche. All made up by combining real sentences by Lyndon LaRouche.

The spooky thing with the generator is that the "memos" are not half as crazy as the real memos LaRouche writes, but that it still looks like an authenthic LaRouche-product!

http://laroucheplanet.info/memo_engine/nonsense_lhl.htm

Secondly. The Swedish cartoonist Lindström (bonton.se) has drawn a picture from the latest cadre school with LYM, the LaRouche Youth Movement. It is the picture below! Please notice that it is Helga Zepp LaRouche that is giving the speech!

Thirdly! A reader of this blog noticed me that the cartoon figure Herman looks and acts a lot like Lyndon. that is true: http://comics.com/herman/?Page=2 Here is a picture of a typical evening at the residence of Lyndon and Helga!

Lyndon LaRouche compares President Obama to Adolf Hitler!

2009-05-19T05:13:00.004+02:00

http://larouchepac.com/node/10280

"The Hitler program has been revived by the Obama Administration," warned Lyndon LaRouche. "This is straight Nazi stuff. It's not a quibble; it's not an interpretation. This is a direct copy of the philosophy of the Nazis. You cannot duck that issue. This is Nazi stuff, and it's explicit. We know all this stuff from Hermann Goering and so forth in the 1920s, and after that with their international connections, like certain Wall Street firms. We have been warned, and we act accordingly. People who condone this are criminals, because they either knew, or should have known, what they are doing. They either knew, or should have known."

"This is mass murder," LaRouche said. "Obama has adopted Hitler's program. There is no reason to hold one's tongue...This is Hitler's policy now being echoed by Obama. Let's not allow any compromise. You have to attack this directly. He has adopted Hitler's genocidal health policy."

Lyndon truly follows on the path of such "gigants" as the late Frankhauser!

/T

KKK collaborator of Lyndon LaRouche, Roy Frankhouser, dies!

2009-05-18T17:39:00.003+02:00

Longtime KKK leader Roy E. Frankhouser Jr. of Reading dies

http://www.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=138941

By Dan Kelly,Reading Eagle

The self-proclaimed head of the Ku Klux Klan in Pennsylvania died Friday in Spruce Manor Nursing Home, West Reading, with no known survivors.

Roy E. Frankhouser Jr., 69, who had operated the Mountain Church of Jesus Christ in the 100 block of South Fourth Street, which doubled as the local KKK headquarters, had resided in Spruce Manor since November 2006.

The Berks County coroner's office is seeking next of kin to claim Frankhouser's body.

Anyone with information about survivors or who wants more information call the coroner's office at 610-478-3280.

During his life Frankhouser had been convicted of an international fraud scheme, allegedly involved in assassination plots against U.S. government leaders, acquitted of a stabbing a rival Klan leader, lost an eye in a bar fight and waged a battle to get his white supremacist show on public access cable television, according to just a few of the dozens of newspaper clippings in the Reading Eagle archive.

The longtime Klansman and former member of the American Nazi Party was convicted in February 1995, following a four-day federal trial in Boston stemming from allegations he advised a white supremacist's mother to destroy evidence linking her son to the desecration of synagogues in Randolph and Brockton, Mass., as well as alleged assaults on black Brockton residents.

On April 28, 1993, Frankhouser was acquitted in Cumberland County Court of assault charges stemming from a 1992 stabbing incident in a hotel where a large KKK meeting was being held.

Frankhouser, then 53, was acquitted following a two-day trial.

The jury cited self-defense in finding the Klansman not guilty.

Frankhouser testified that stabbing victim Frank Mosley, a KKK security guard, and several skinheads ambushed and attacked him while he was attempting to enter the meeting. James W. Farrands, imperial wizard of a large Klan faction, was at the hotel.

Frankhouser said he defended himself with a Swiss army knife he had in his possession.

Frankhouser claimed a victory for free speech in 1985 when he launched "Race and Reason" on Berks Cable TV, the predecessor to BCTV.

He later hosted "White Forum" on BCTV.

He was on television on either network for more than a decade.

On Feb. 17, 1988, Frankhouser was sentenced to three years in federal prison and fined $50,000 for advising political extremist Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. to obstruct a federal grand jury probe into an alleged fundraising fraud scheme.

During the trial, Forrest Lee Fick of Stony Creek Mills testified that he and Frankhouser were asked by a member of LaRouche's organization to kill former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger during a flight to Europe.

According the newspaper records, Frankhouser was first arrested in 1961 at age 22 for kicking an Atlanta police captain in the shins during a protest.

TO READ MORE, LOOK HERE:

http://www.laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Cult.RoyFrankhouser

And from a book by Dennis King:

http://lyndonlarouche.org/fascism21.htm

http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/fascism22.htm

Lyndon LaRouche, the nonagapic homophobe that thinks it is right to beat homosexuals!!

2009-05-15T11:42:00.005+02:00

Today I post a DISGUSTING quote by Lyndon LaRouche on homosexuality from 1986!

/T

"We have another purpose in fighting AIDS, for our fighting AIDS — for our inducing people to do what they should have done anyway without our speaking a word.

Government agencies should have done this. There should be no issue! But government agencies didn't! That's the issue. Why didn't they? Because of a cultural paradigm shift. They did not want, on the one hand, to estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called in the United States. (I don't know why they're "gay", they're the most miserable creatures I ever saw!) The so-called gay lobby, 8% of the population, the adult electorate; the drug users. There are 20 million cocaine sniffers in the United States, at least. Of course it does affect their mind; it affects the way they vote!

What was the problem? The problem was the cultural paradigm shift. If someone comes up and says, "Yeah, but you can't interfere with the civil rights of an AIDS victim" — what the devil is this? You can't interfere with an AIDS victim killing hundreds of people, by spreading the disease to hundreds of people, which will kill them, during the period before he himself dies? So therefore, should we allow people with guns to go out and shoot people as they choose? Isn't that a matter of the civil rights of gun carriers? Or, if you've got an ax — if you can't aim too well, and just have an ax or a broad sword — shouldn't we allow people with broad swords and axes to go out and kill people indiscriminately as they choose, as a matter of their civil rights?

Where did this nonsense come from? Oh, we don't want to offend the gays! Gays are sensitive to their civil rights; this will lead to discrimination against gays!

They're already beating up gays with baseball bats around the country! Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball bats, and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to recruit children, and they take their baseball bats and they beat them up pretty bad. They'll kill one sooner or later. In Chicago, they're beating up gays that are hanging around certain schools, pederasts; children go out with baseball bats and beat them up-which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It's a matter of children's civil rights!"

/Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "The End of the Age of Aquarius?" EIR (Executive Intelligence Review), January 10, 1986, p. 40.

Cult or no cult? (Part 4) Is Lyndon LaRouche omnipotent and Omniscent, or just a macho bully?

2009-05-13T17:46:00.011+02:00

I re-read today what an ex LYM-member posted on the Factnet in June 2004:

"(2) Is it possible at all that one human being should be right about everything all the time? When has Lyn EVER admitted being wrong? Does that sound normal? Therefore, is this someone I should be following, someone who implicitly claims to be infallible about everything? "

Good question. If one looks at the way the organization speaks about its guru Lyndon LaRouche, it actually seems like LaRouche is God.

Lets look at that. I borrowed a thing from this website: http://www.lava.net/~hcssc/Omni-God_Challenge.html )

The basic Christian theology centers around the proposition that there is "One Almighty" omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omni-benevolent "God" (embodied in Jesus) and one less-powerful, less-knowing, less-present, all-evil devil-god named "Satan." A host of "angels", "demons", "spirits", and other supposedly immaterial entities of varying superhuman but less-than-supreme power accompany, assist, and obey either "God" (good) or "Satan" (evil).

The organization believes that:

Lyndon is omnipotent -- that "He" is all-powerful; nothing is beyond "His" capability as a POWERFUL POLITICIAN; WORLD HISTORY CENTERS AROUND HIM, everything that has happened in politics the last 40 years has either been WITH him or against him, no politician has been greater and he is superior in every way, Lyndon is ALWAYS RIGHT (per definition) and has to my knowledge NEVER EVER admitted that he has been wrong about ANYTHING!

Lyndon is omniscient -- that "He" is all-knowing; nothing is outside or beyond "His" knowledge; no mind smarter; perfect in knowledge; He can grasp ANY subject, he is a universal GENIUS; and... Lyndon is ALWAYS RIGHT (per definition) and has to my knowledge NEVER EVER admitted that he has been wrong about ANYTHING!

Lyndon is omnipresent -- everything that happens on this planet has to do with him, all powerful people knows who he is and the evil oligarchs are fighting his ENORMOUS INFLUENCE UPON GLOBAL POLITICS; nothing is beyond "His" reach; "He" is at one with time and space; and Lyndon is ALWAYS RIGHT (per definition) and has to my knowledge NEVER EVER admitted that he has been wrong about ANYTHING!

Lyndon" is omni-benevolent -- that "He" is always good; incapable of evil; no greater love; "He" is perfect in every way; He is AGAPIC... And besides... Lyndon is ALWAYS RIGHT (per definition) and has to my knowledge NEVER EVER admitted that he has been wrong about ANYTHING!

And the enemies you have are all SATANISTS!

Well, Lyndon... If you were omni-benevolent, why do your slaves work seven or six and a half days at the offices, at least twelve hours a day, for NOTHING?

If you were omnipresent, howcome do no politician (more than your dear buddy Mugabe) like you, or even want to cooperate with you?

If you were so damned omniscent, why could you not forecast who bought your underpants, and were the money for food and clothes and housing came from, when you were asked about that at your trial?

If you were so damned omnipotent, why is it that you have often been so wrong, but are such a big COWARD that you dont admit that! (It takes much more strength to admit that one has been wrong, than to never admit any faults or flaws!)

You are no God!

And thus, the organizers and members are WRONG when they hold on to a worldview that more or less ASSUMES AXIOMATICLY that Lyndon is some kind of God.

/T

My Swedish blog is created!

2009-05-13T16:29:00.003+02:00

For those who can read Swedish I have started the work to create a Swedish blog. You can read it here:

http://eap-larouche.blogspot.com/

/T

The tour James Bevel did to Australia 2004

2009-05-10T09:34:00.005+02:00

Hylozoic Hedgehog posted an interesting thing from The Searchlight on a tour James Bevel did for the organization to Australia, in 1994.

James Bevel was Lyndon laRouches choosen Vice president Candidate at the time. Last year he passed away after being sentenced by a court to 15 years in prison for incest against his daughters! According to the things said at court he was abusing his own daughter while he stayed in Leesburg at the time, 1992 to 1994, and was guarded by the security guards of the organization.

I remember that I spoke to him when he visited Europe for a conference that year. I sat down together with some other young members and he spoke about - sexuality! He said that he had had sex with cows(!) when he was young, but now he had learned to control his sexuality! He talked much about sex, when he spoke to youngsters...

The post about his tour in Australia shows that CEC spent 25000 dollars on a tour with public meetings where perhaps a dozen new people showed up.

“You have to ask yourself, why do these people bother? Possibly because they know they’re on a good wicket, flying around the country, chatting away on their long-distance phone calls, playing away at being secret service agents and spending other people’s money like there was no tomorrow.

“$25,000 spent for four or five new faces in the audience. That sort of gross financial negligence is usually reserved for government departments. That’s nearly a third of what the League of Rights spends in a year."

The post can be read here: http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showpost.php?p=378887&postcount=2053

And please read my post on Bevel too: http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showpost.php?p=378897&postcount=2060

.

The deeds of a good friend of Lyndon LaRouche...

2009-05-09T13:38:00.007+02:00

In March this year the wife of Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai in Zimbabwe dies in a suspicious car accident, in which the Prime minister gets injured. Tsvangirai is a long time opponent of the President and dictator Mugabe, whom Lyndon LaRouche considers to be an ally. Tsvangirai is considered to be a Brittish agent by Lyndon because he works for democracy in Zimbabwe...

Many opponents of Mugabe has had sudden "accidents" recently.

According to President Robert Mugabe, deadly crash was "due to the hand of God"...

This is a drawing by Zapiro about the "accident"...

Apparently some of Mugabes allies knew about the crash BEFOREHAND (read more here). The Police apparently looted the belongings of the Prime minister (Click here to read more) and the minister himself has ruled out that it was an assassination attempt (read here) but most people believe it was a staged assassination attempt.

By the way. On May 5 a group of Human Rights Activists whose only crime is that they want democracy, was sent to jail. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/05/05/zimbabwe.activists.jailed/index.html#cnnSTCText

But in the eyes of Lyndon LaRouche democracy and Freedom is not so important as he views all that fight for democracy in Zimbabwe as Brittish agents, who are led by George Soros.

/T

Cult or no cult? (Part 3) THE LAROUCHE MOVEMENT AS A CLASSIC CULT

2009-05-08T00:11:00.005+02:00

Hylozoic Hedgehog has had a series of posts on the Factnet about a book by a former member of the australian organization, that wrote a book called "Beyond Common Sense: Pyscho-Politics in Australia" (BCS).

HH quotes some things the author of this book (Don Veitch) has written about the LaRouchecult. The link to his post is: http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showpost.php?p=378816&postcount=2017

I am quoting some of it here, please go to the original post to read the rest:

/T

**********************

In the last section of BCS (pps. 77-101), Veitch attempts to put the LaRouche operation in Australia into some perspective. Although it is impossible to summarize all of his arguments here, his account is extremely shrewd and at times remarkable. Drawing from his lifelong background as an anti-Communist activist, Veitch essentially sees LaRouche as someone whose entire career mimics a “Leninist”-style cult. Drawing on the writings of Michels, Weber and Robert Lifton, Veitch vividly portrays the LC as a classic political personality cult centered on worshiping the charismatic Great Helmsman:

“At all times the great feats and courage of LaRouche are promoted: he has claimed to be a communicant with God; he speaks to the great minds of history; he has changed the course of human history; he is at the forefront of every contemporary political issue; he is the central concern of evil forces for He alone can save the world in the areas of economics, philosophy, music, physics, mathematics, linguistics, and culture, LaRouche is claimed to have made dramatic breakthroughs, his feats are paraded before the loyal followers.”

Veitch then later quotes Max Weber: “Charismatic domination means a rejection of all ties to any external order in favor of the exclusive gratification of the genius mentality of the prophet and hero.”

Veitch quite insightfully remarks:

“Promotion of LaRouche to absurd proportions is just one of the tactics to keep office workers in line and hard at fund-raising activities. It is the organization’s role to convince the organization itself of this fact. With such blind assurance the organization can ask for the supreme sacrifice. The LaRouche myth has degenerated into an organizational tool is Australia, and susceptible people have gone along with it. The goal of the LaRouche movement IS the LaRouche movement. It exists for no other purpose than to perpetuate its own (self-adjudged) purity of method and doctrine.”

Veitch then continues:

“The major role of the organization is to maintain the organization, and this means maintaining The Leader and those who walk in His Image. A premium is placed on being more loyal than the loyal [Tony and Nancy this means you – HH]. . . . . Thought control within the organization is THE business of the LaRouche-CEC operation. And to this extent, purges are an organizational imperative. An annual purge against evil is conducted. No dissent is tolerated, for if it was, the charisma of the leader and his role as an Agent of History, would dissipate and the game would be over. . . . A compliant, unquestioning ‘lapdog’ attitude in encouraged [Tony and Nancy . . . HH]. Certain chosen members are encouraged to seek out and spy on potential trouble spots and to report back to the ‘leadership.’ . . . The consequence of this internal witch-hunting (the Australian LaRouche organization literally does hunt down the ‘witch-mother’), is the creation of an intimidated organization and a sterility of human thought, quite the opposite from what the organization claims fulsomely to be nurturing – a new Golden Renaissance.”

As a result,

“A main cultural feature of office practice at the CEC, a practice cultivated, encouraged and developed by the leadership, is the culture of the ‘underhand method.’ Such a culture encourages spying, denigration, undermining, paranoia. It is of an authoritarian and undemocratic nature. In any mentally sane organization it would be denounced as ‘backstabbing,’ ‘petty-minded,’ and office infighting, but in the Australian LaRouche organization it is an organizational tool, it is elevated to a semi-mystical process of cadre training. In the end it is corrupting. It encourages megalomania in its leaders [Tony and Nancy . . . Oh, never mind . . . HH], and entrenches their paranoia.”

As a result of this process the entire LaRouche project in Australia was rooted in fraud:

“The Citizens Electoral Councils is an organization which calls upon people to make great efforts for humanity. It considers itself revolutionary, challenging the axioms of society and battling to save the world from an impending holocaust, a New Dark Ages. It appeals to the finest traits of individuals, but in fact betrays them. . . . Whilst the ICLC members are willing to make the sacrifice, believing that this is the unselfish and high minded duty to humanity, what in reality is happening is that they are placing themselves into a controlled environment, and making themselves vulnerable to manipulation.” In short, “The CEC-LaRouche movement is merely repeating the errors of a thousand discredited sects and cults.”

(...)

Veitch concludes Beyond Common Sense: Psycho-Politics in Australia this way:

“The ‘freedom’ or input that adherents of LaRouche in Australia might have is the freedom and input of a McDonald’s Franchisee. When joining up you accept the corporate design, logo and product. There is not changing of the ingredients or the hamburger promotions and franchisors must be gratified in some way.

“One wit has claimed that the LaRouche movement is a combination of a McDonald’s corporate structure, Christ and his disciples, the tub-thumping and martial rules of the Salvation Army, the missionary zeal of the Mormons, and the zealotry of the Communist International (the ‘Comintern’).

“In all these you will find the essential ‘herbs and spices’ of the LaRouche political organization.”

Because the ICLC has become so ossified, the group “is now a self-perpetuating, self-congratulating, inbred, inward-looking oligarchy. Its techniques and technology are out of date. The brain has ossified. Little has been achieved [little that is outside of being sent to jail – HH]. The leadership is made up of ageing increasingly disillusioned misfits, still waiting. Members are, at all times, made subservient, unquestioning and regimented. For those deemed to be ‘backsliders,’ a campaign of psychological terrorism and abuse is directed against them until they either conform or leave. LaRouche in Australia now presides over an increasingly ineffective but deluded group of people.

“In the initial tilt for world power, the message was a Marxist one, in the second long march to world victory, the organization has crawled into a Catholic-ecumenical mould – in much the same way as a hermit crab occupies a new home. This strange mixture has created irreconcilable ‘contradictions’ within the LaRouche structure. This accounts for some of its bizarre behavior.”

The last page of BCS ends this way:

“This then is the story of how a promising start was made to a new political organization capable of challenging existing structures and orthodoxy, but was destroyed by a compliant party secretary, conniving to hand a promising structure over to a foreign organization espousing suspect psychological theories based on highly discredited Marxist dogma. The CEC in Australia is a ‘swamp.’

“That such a process should be allowed to occur is beyond psychoanalysis, beyond common sense, and well into the realm of self-destruction.

“It is impossible to start a renaissance of the mind through a vicious thought-control program.”

.

Confessions by someone who is NOT a coward!

2009-05-07T09:00:00.010+02:00

.
David P. Goldman, a former associate of LaRouche, wrote yesterday an article about his time in the cult. I am posting an excerpt of it here!

/T

-------------------

Confessions of a Coward
By David P. Goldman

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1409

(...)

The critic Harold Bloom once argued that the characteristic American religion is a species of gnosticism, and I have good reason to believe it to be true, having spent some years—from 1976 to 1986—in a gnostic cult under the leadership of a man named Lyndon LaRouche.

Was it all bad? In March 1984, Norman A. Bailey, then special assistant to President Reagan for international economic affairs, told NBC news that the LaRouche organization had “one of the best private intelligence services in the world.” The supply-side publicist Jude Wanniski—my future business partner—had introduced me to Bailey in 1981, when I ran the economics desk for LaRouche’s publications. Among my colleagues were several researchers who went on to distinguished careers. The Asia desk chief, for instance, was Dan Sneider, afterward a distinguished correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor and the San Francisco Mercury, and now director of a university research institute. European economics was handled by Laurent Murawiec, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute; the Middle East desk was headed by Bob Dreyfuss, now a regular contributor to the Nation, American Prospect, and New Republic; and the chief science writer was Jonathan Tennenbaum, a brilliant mathematician who had taught at the University of Copenhagen.

We were all about thirty, and most of us were Jewish. The question, of course, is what were a group of young Jews doing in the company of a cult leader with a paranoid view of the world and a thinly disguised anti-Semitic streak.

Here is one answer: We were all long-in-the-tooth student radicals. LaRouche’s organization was the flotsam washed up by the wave of the collective madness that had swept through the youth of the world in 1968 and left many of its participants maladapted to ordinary life for years afterward.

During the 1960s, LaRouche was a one-man Trotskyite splinter group, teaching free-lance courses on Marxist economics at whatever venue would have him. He culled student radicals with an intellectual bent who were repelled by the mindlessness endemic on the left in the late 1960s. LaRouche’s pitch was insidious: How can you justify yourself morally unless you know that what you are doing is right? There existed a science of mind, LaRouche claimed, that would enable the adept to reach the right conclusion.

We were atheists, of course—the concept of “religious intellectual” was unknown to me in my student days at Columbia and the London School of Economics—and the idea that truth might come through revelation seemed beyond snickering. The Vietnam War, the crisis in race relations, and the cracks in the economic structure of the 1970s persuaded us that we had to do something and that indifference was morally inexcusable.

And that is where LaRouche had us. His intellectual method resembled the old tale about stone soup: Having announced that he had the inside track on the hidden knowledge that underlay Western civilization (one of his essay was titled “The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites”), he attracted a small parade of intellectual orphans, whom he then put to elaborating the details. By the late 1970s he had collected some highly credentialed acolytes, including a group of physicists and mathematicians at his front organization, the Fusion Energy Foundation.

LaRouche claimed to trace a tradition of secret knowledge across the ages, from Plato and Plotinus, through the Renaissance, and down to the German scientists and philosophers of the nineteenth century. Of course, that raises a question: If there exists this kind of knowledge, then why isn’t it universally shared? The reverse side of the gnostic page is paranoia: There must be a cabal of evil people who prevent the dissemination of the truth.

In LaRouche’s Manichean view of the world, a conspiracy had suppressed the truth in the service of evil oligarchs. Starting with Aristotle, it continued through to the nominalists, the British empiricists, and that supposed pinnacle of modern evil, Bertrand Russell. The Venetian Inquisition, the British Empire, the Hapsburg family, the Rockefellers, and the Trilateral Commission all figured variously in this grand conspiracy against LaRouche’s supposed intellectual antecedents. Jewish banking families kept popping up in LaRouche’s accounts of the evil forces.

You might think—you should think—that this would have sent us running for the exits. But, Godless and faithless, we were all possessed by a fear of being Jewish, and LaRouche offered us a rock to hide under. LaRouche feigned a sort of philo-Semitism, praising marginal figures who could be fit into his mold: the Platonist Philo of Alexandria, for example, and the German rationalist Moses Mendelssohn—Jews, that is, who sounded more like Greek philosophers than like Jews. He also portrayed himself as the opponent of Nazi tendencies that lurked everywhere. In a caricature of the reductio ad Hitlerum, everything he didn’t like pointed to the Nazis. The economist Milton Friedman, whose students had advised the Pinochet regime in Chile, must be a fascist because LaRouche didn’t like his economics, and I coauthored a book with LaRouche in 1978 with that silly allegation.

LaRouche’s anti-Semitism was rarely in the open, but it often lurked just beneath the surface. Sometime in the early 1970s, he had played political footsy with the Liberty Lobby, a group headed by the anti-Semite and Holocaust denier Willis Carto. In a Carto-influenced article LaRouche later tried to suppress, he put the number of Jewish dead at around 1.5 million. I knew about all this, and I looked the other way.

In 1978, I did a study for LaRouche of the economics of the narcotics traffic. The numbers I crunched showed that narcotics was a hundred-billion-dollar-a-year business—not a controversial conclusion today, but at the time it seemed startling. LaRouche took my quantitative study and combined it with the paranoid musings of other researchers into a book, Dope, Inc., that had unmistakable anti-Semitic overtones. I knew about this, too, and again I looked the other way.

When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, LaRouche was doing well, with a pocket publishing empire, a more-or-less accepted scientific front in the Fusion Energy Foundation, and a remarkable capacity to raise money (a good deal of which, it later turned out, was obtained by fraud). Nonetheless, within a few years nearly all his key people had quit. Once they began to engage the real world at a serious level, they broke free of LaRouche’s spell. For my part, I owe a great deal to Norman Bailey, then director of plans at the National Security Council. My political education began in his lair at the old Executive Office Building in 1981, when he explained to me that the United States would destroy the Soviet Empire by the end of the 1980s.

After I became convinced that the Reagan administration knew what it was doing, my break with LaRouche was inevitable. He cashiered me as economics editor for his publications in 1982, for the offense of predicting (correctly) that the Reagan reforms would bring about an economic recovery (since if the American economy was on the mend, it did not need a savior like LaRouche). But I was still stuck emotionally in LaRouche’s flypaper. I moved to Europe, consulted for Bailey, and pursued musical research under the auspices of another LaRouche front, the Schiller Institute, until 1986.

I had grown up as a red-diaper baby in a secular Jewish household (although my parents put me through the motions of a Bar Mitzvah at a Reconstructionist synagogue). I joined the left-wing Zionist youth organization Hashomer Hatzair and spent a summer on a kibbutz in Israel where the Israeli flag flew underneath the red flag of international socialism. Like so many leftist Jews, I came to believe that only a universal solution to humanity’s problems would solve the problems of the Jews, and the more universal the solution, the less Jewish. In plain English I was afraid to be Jewish: The less Jewish I was, and the more universal, the less likely I would be to be killed for being Jewish.

And yet, physical fear in the background of the Holocaust was only one consideration. Another, deeper fear kept me at a distance from Judaism. My only sense of the sacred had come from classical music, the great avocation of my adolescence. The over-representation of Jews in classical music is no accident: Jews who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge God sometimes find music a safer means by which to evoke religious feelings without the fearful demands of encountering a personal God. To approach the sacred, Jewish tradition admonishes, is both exalting and dangerous, and it is less frightening to look for the sacred in Mozart’s sonatas than on Mt. Sinai. I had studied piano intensively and composed a bit while young, and I continued my studies through college. This bound me to LaRouche more closely than many of his other dupes, for he was a great aficionado of classical music, using the ill-gotten proceeds of his fund-raising machine to sponsor public as well as private concerts by first-class musicians.

Around 1985, the ugly awareness that I had spent almost a decade in a gnostic cult coincided with a dark time in my personal life. Deeply depressed, I sat at the piano one night, playing through the score of Bach’s St. Matthew Passion, and came to the chorale that reads: “Commend your ways and what ails your heart to the faithful care of Him who directs the heavens, who gives course and aim to the clouds, air and wind. He will also find a path that your foot can tread.” For the first time in my life, I prayed, and in that moment, I knew that my prayer was heard. That was a first step of teshuva—of return.

(...)

/David P. Goldman

Cult or no cult? (part 2) To "live within a lie"...

2009-05-05T08:23:00.005+02:00

One of the texts that meant most to me when I left the movement of Lyndon LaRouche, was a small text by the author Vaclav Havel. The power of the powerless, from 1978.

I posted it on the scribd today so you can read it: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14973158/Vaclav-Havel

The text by Havel was important for me, because it describes something Havel calls "to live within a lie". And that description fits exactly with much I did in the LaRoucheorganization. I did things I knew was a lie, and everyone else knew that most of what we did was based on lies, but we lied to ourselves and pretended that the lies were true...

As so many organizers in the LaRouchecult still does today...

Perhaps it is time for all members to stop living in a lie?

Havel

Havel strats out by talking about the communist system. He describes what he calls the "post totalitarian system", a dictatorial system that does not survive by terror, but by some kind of brainwashing. There are many similarities between this post totalitarian system and the way the LaRouchecult is run today...

"It commands an incomparably more precise, logically structured, generally comprehensible and, in essence, extremely flexible ideology that, in its elaborateness and completeness, is almost a secularized religion. It offers a ready answer to any question whatsoever; it can scarcely be accepted only in part, and accepting it has profound implications for human life. In an era when metaphysical and existential certainties are in a state of crisis, when people are being uprooted and alienated and are losing their sense of what this world means, this ideology inevitably has a certain hypnotic charm..."

Havel continues by describing how this "hypnotic charm" works:

"The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? (...)

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say...

Obviously the greengrocer . . . does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?"

One might ask a member of the LaRouchecult: did you too put your slogans between the onions and the carrots today?

Ideology

"Between the aims of the post-totalitarian system and the aims of life there is a yawning abyss: while life, in its essence, moves toward plurality, diversity, independent self-constitution, aud self organization, in short, toward the fulfillment of its own freedom, the post-totalitarian system demands conformity, uniformity, and discipline. While life ever strives to create new and improbable structures, the posttotalitarian system contrives to force life into its most probable states...

Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe. . . .

The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.

Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as though they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system...

The greengrocer had to put the slogan in his window, therefore, not in the hope that someone might read it or be persuaded by it, but to contribute, along with thousands of other slogans, to the panorama that everyone is very much aware of. This panorama, of course, has a subliminal meaning as well: it reminds people where they are living and what is expected of them. It tells them what everyone else is doing, and indicates to them what they must do as well, if they don't want to be excluded, to fall into isolation, alienate themselves from society, break the rules of the game, and risk the loss of their peace and tranquility and security..."

The lies within the LaRoucheorganization...

As a member of the LaRouchecult I lied to myself. We members lied to ourselves...

We did not put up communist slogans among the onions and carrots, but we repeated the mantra "Lyndon LaRouche" over and over and only repeated "politically correct" ideas.

Everything we did had to have a reference to the "great thinker" Lyndon LaRouche, and was in line with his thinking. If a briefing writer, who wrote the internal memos for the organization, did not mention LaRouche enough, and did not explain that what he did was "historical", Lyndon would get mad at the poor writer.

If a member was talking to little about Lyndon we reacted and thought that he perhaps was blocked or disloyal...

Common sense was blocked out. Many organizers "forgot" things he had done. Every time Lyndon predicted the collapse of the financial system before a certain date (before Clinton gets to power, before Clintons last term, before the second term, etc...), organizers forgot that he had predicted the final collapse of the financial system many times before.

We learned to look at the world with black and white glasses, all people are either 100% good or 100% evil or stupid... And all evidence to the contrary was sorted out by us.

When Lyndon started the witchhunt against the former member F. Quijano all members "forgot" that Lyndon had lived in the same house as Quijano for many years in New York and that Lyndon had ordered Quijano and Helga to lead the organization when he was in jail...

And speaking about jail. We all knew that the LC had betrayed and fooled a lot of people. Take for example the "lending of money". The LC borrowed money that ONLY could be paid back if Lyndon became president, something that was highly unthinkable. A fraud, and we all knew it!

And the lie that Lyndon cares about hypothesis. Look at the writings of Lyndon and tell me were the hell you can find a nypothesis? You can read book after book after article about his method and about hypothesis but without any traces of hypothesis at all. All one can see is ABSOLUTE TRUTH, because everything Lyndon talks about is how he believes that the world IS, and all that oppose it are blocked, agents or just plain stupid... Everytime he opens his mouth an ABSOLUTE TRUTH is uttered. When did you ever hear him talk about Plato, the British, Barry Fell, Newton or Vernadsky and say that it "could be so", or that it has to be investigated "if it is so"... No, all is uttered as truth!

Lets look at the LC today. Lyndon is doing a witchhunt against former associate Molly Kronberg. Lyndon claims that he has "known" all the time that it was Molly that put him in prison. All LC members know that to be false. Just read the "railroad" book or anything that has been published about the trials against LaRouche. If LaRouche has known it for a long time, why has he not said so before?

And the LC and LYM members just play the game. Why? Because they live within a lie!

But what will happen the day a member stops living within a lie? What will happen when YOU stop living within this lie?

The greengrocer that stops living within a lie...

The fact is that the organization Lyndon LaRouche has created cant allow any dissenting voices or any dialogues about hypothesis. All have to be streamlined according to LaRouches opinion about how things are. His ABSOLUTE TRUTH is to be obeyed at all times!

Thus the dissenting voice in the organization, becomes a threat against the control Lyndon LaRouche has over the organization.

That is why Lyndon becomes so mad when someone seems to think independently, or when someone disagrees with Lyndon.

Lets continue to look at what Havel writes...

"Let us now imagine that one day something in our greengrocer snaps and he stops putting up the slogans merely to ingratiate himself. He stops voting in elections he knows are a farce. He begins to say what he really thinks at political meetings. And he even finds the strength in himself to express solidarity with those whom his conscience commands him to support. In this revolt the greengrocer steps out of living within the lie. He rejects the ritual and breaks the rules of the game. He discovers once more his suppressed identity and dignity. He gives his freedom a concrete significance. His revolt is an attempt to live within the truth. . . .

The bill is not long in coming. He will be relieved of his post as manager of the shop and transferred to the warehouse. His pay will be reduced. His hopes for a holiday in Bulgaria will evaporate. His children's access to higher education will be threatened. His superiors will harass him and his fellow workers will wonder about him. Most of those who apply these sanctions, however, will not do so from any authentic inner conviction but simply under pressure from conditions, the same conditions that once pressured the greengrocer to display the official slogans. They will persecute the greengrocer either because it is expected of them, or to demonstrate their loyalty, or simply as part of the general panorama, to which belongs an awareness that this is how situations of this sort are dealt with, that this, in fact, is how things are always done, particularly if one is not to become suspect oneself. The executors, therefore, behave essentially like everyone else, to a greater or lesser degree: as components of the post-totalitarian system, as agents of its automatism, as petty instruments of the social auto-totality.

Thus the power structure, through the agency of those who carry out the sanctions, those anonymous components of the system, will spew the greengrocer from its mouth. The system, through its alienating presence in people, will punish him for his rebellion. It must do so because the logic of its automatism and self-defense dictate it. The greengrocer has not committed a simple, individual offense, isolated in its own uniqueness, but something incomparably more serious. By breaking the rules of the game, he has disrupted the game as such. He has exposed it as a mere game. He has shattered the world of appearances, the fundamental pillar of the system. He has upset the power structure by tearing apart what holds it together. He has demonstrated that living a lie is living a lie. He has broken through the exalted facade of the system and exposed the real, base foundations of power. He has said that the emperor is naked. And because the emperor is in fact naked, something extremely dangerous has happened: by his action, the greengrocer has addressed the world. He has enabled everyone to peer behind the curtain. He has shown everyone that it is possible to live within the truth. Living within the lie can constitute the system only if it is universal. The principle must embrace and permeate everything. There are no terms whatsoever on which it can co-exist with living within the truth, and therefore everyone who steps out of line denies it in principle and threatens it in its entirety. . . .

The original and most important sphere of activity, one that predetermines all the others, is simply an attempt to create and support the independent life of society as an articulated expression of living within the truth. In other words, serving truth consistently, purposefully, and articulately, and organizing this service. This is only natural, after all: if living within the truth is an elementary starting point for every attempt made by people to oppose the alienating pressure of the system, if it is the only meaningful basis of any independent act of political import, and if, ultimately, it is also the most intrinsic existential source of the "dissident" attitude, then it is difficult to imagine that even manifest "dissent" could have any other basis than the service of truth, the truthful life, and the attempt to make room for the genuine aims of life.

To conclude

Once you, as a member, begin to question Lyndon LaRouche, or begins to openly show interest for other things than the organization, you become a potential threat, as Havel writes... But you become FREE too!

The more you live for a TRUE dialogue and a TRUE interest in different hypothesis about the world a TRUE joy can develop. You discovers once more your suppressed identity and dignity. You gives your freedom a concrete significance. Your revolt is an attempt to live within the truth, to paraphraze Havel.

Thus you grow from a powerless figure, that just lives, acts and thinks, according to the rules that Lyndon dictated, to a powerful FREE individual.

The power you have as a powerless member of the LC and LYM is to choose a true dialogue, a true joy for hypothesis, a true freedom, and to say no to the dualistic,manichean claims Lyndon has that whatever he says is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH!

Stop putting your slogans among the carrots and onions in your life. Stop living within a lie!

/T

Cult or no cult? (part 1) Luxury and poverty..

2009-05-04T18:35:00.009+02:00

Written to X (LYM a la carte) ;o) !

/T

Yesterday I wrote about the witchhunt Lyndon LaRouche has initiated against the older members that need healthcare. Members that have organized for LaRouche for 30 to 40 years, and have given their lives for him, now gets to hear: "You boomers only think about yourselves, your money, your lifestyle and your health." Somehow these older members should think more about the future of mankind, LaRouche says...

Well, guess what. That is what they have done. They have spent their whole adult life fighting for Lyndon and, six to seven days a week for 12 to 14 HOURS A DAY in dusty and noicy rooms or out in the dust and fumes and often cold climate at the "field" and now they approach their 60s and are not in a good shape, with healthproblems (big surprise!).

The ordinary LYM member that lives in a house with a number of other LYM-members will meet the same fate in some years...

"I am feeling frisky"

And added to this: Lyndon constantly spits in the face of the older organizers by saying that HIS health is ok, he feels "frisky", while the other "boomers" are so weak and cant do anything right.

Well that is easy to say when Lyndon lives at a farm at the countryside, and when he can eat well and sleep as long as he wants, and travel all over the world, and when he has not needed to spend the days at the field or the offices, inhaling dust and fumes like the boomers!

Nothing keeps one as "frisky" as countryside air, you know...

CULT OR NO CULT?

Now I ask you, who still believes that Lyndon LaRouche is somekind of agapic, loving genius tolook at how Lyndon LaRouche has lived and compare that to how an ordinary member lives!

- "Yes he has lived in fancy expensive houses and estates, but that is needed for his protection", you might say. "Lyndon himself does not own anything. He just stays in the house that the organization bought, and he stays there for his protection."

Well, it is here that a person that still is a member can find out the truth about the organization... By comparing to other cults.

Because, you know... The Moonies, Hubbard, And Bhagwan (Osho) did the same thing.

Osho and laRouche, a comparison...

Lets read how another cultleader, Osho, explained why he had 90 Rolls Royce (!).

Q - Why do you like your Rolls Royces so much?

A - I have tried all kinds of cars; and even Rolls Royce has many types and I have tried them too. Their best is the Corniche, but it doesn't suit me. It is a question of my back. I need a certain kind of chair—I use only this chair. It has been made by my sannyasins exactly to give support to my back, because doctors have said that they cannot do anything more.

Experts from England were called to India. They tried hard, and they said, "It is impossible. You will have to live with it." It was just a coincidence that one of the models of Rolls Royce, Silver Spur, suited me. The driver's seat in that car fits perfectly, gives me no trouble. Naturally, my people love….

They don't belong to me, those cars—nothing belongs to me. I am the poorest man in the whole world, living the richest life possible. My people love me; they want to do something for me. All those cars belong to the commune. They have made them available to me for one hour each day. I don't know which car they are bringing, but one thing is certain, that I can be comfortable only in a Silver Spur. And they love me so much that they are trying to have three hundred and sixty-five Rolls Royces, one for every day. And I say, "Why not? A great idea!"…

They have arranged ninety Rolls Royces, and I know they will be able to manage three hundred and sixty-five.

Q - People are very much interested in your Rolls Royces. What do You want to prove with this, so many cars and so much luxury around You?

A - Why are people concerned? Then certainly they need it; then more Rolls Royces will be here. Until they stop asking me, more and more Rolls Royces are going to be here. Now it has to be seen that it is a challenge: the day nobody asks me about Rolls Royces, they will not be coming.
People's interest in Rolls Royces shows their mind. They are not interested what is happening here. They don't ask about meditation, they don't ask about sannyas, they don't ask about people's life, love, the laughter that happens in this desert. They only ask about Rolls Royces. That means I have touched some painful nerve. And I will go on pressing it till they stop asking.
I am not a worshipper of poverty... I am not a hypocrite. I am the poorest man on the earth. I don't have a single cent with me."( http://www.oshoworld.com/biography/innercontent.asp?FileName=biography8/08-20-rolls.txt )

Back to Lyndon

So, Osho is poor, and owns nothing but has still received all these luxurious cars as a "gift"... But still does not own the gift he received... (sic!) Now compare this to Lyndon LaRouche.

At the trials in the 80s Lyndon LaRouche said this:

Q Where did you eat?

A At the house.

Q Was there food in the house?

Q Did you buy it?

A No.

Q Did Helga LaRouche buy it?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q Who bought it?

A I don't know.

Q With what money?

A I don't know.

Q How do you take care of daily living expenses, Mr. LaRouche?

A I don't know.

Q Do you live free?

A I don't know."

Lyndon laRouche actually used the same method as other cultleaders, like Osho. He claimed that he owned nothing and that he only lived in a great residence (Ibykos Farm at the time) due to security reasons. The testimony by Rick MagGraw, his security "advisor" is equally interesting. Read it here, it starts from page 97: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14708367/Lyndon-LaRouche-trial-MaGrawTestimony

Like for example page 132 where the LaRouche residence in New York was dicussed:

Q Did Mr. LaRouche own that house?

A (Rick) No, he did not.

The prosecuter had earlier asked about where LaRouche got his clothes from, Rick told the prosecuter that he bought the underpants of Lyndon:

"Q Did you buy any other clothing for him?

A (Rick) I may have bought some shirts.

Q Is that all?

A I think I bought him a pair of boots one time.

Q Is that all?

A And maybe some underwear or something like that.

Q Did you discuss these purchases with him?

A No.

Q You would just go out and do it on your own?

A Yes.

Q How would you know that he needed underwear?

A I think in the case of underwear, there were a couple of times when we were on tour, and I can think of one case in particular where he said we were on the road and it was during a campaign swing in New Hampshire, and he said he was rather ragged.

Q What about the other clothing, you wouldn't discuss that with him?

A No."

Dont get fooled, the judges and the jury members at the LaRouchetrial were not! The absurd statements that LaRouche owned nothing and were a "guest" at the house owned by the organization, was absurd.

Witnesses and evidences clearly showed the opposite.

And guess what, Lyndon was actually imprisoned for fraud. No wonder, no one would buy the simple lie that Lyndon owned nothing!

And guess what... Lyndon ended up in jail, as Osho, and none of these cultleaders "owned nothing", you know... ;o)

Summary

Why these quotes?

Well, if you compare what Lyndon LaRouche does to what other cultleaders say and do you will find that the METHODS they use is the same, even if the actual circumstances might differ. And that is crucial if you want to leave the LaRouchecult!

Lyndon has not collected 90 Rolls Royce like Osho, but both lived a life in luxury (Lyn still does, relative luxury!) and could travel accross the continents by using supersonic jet, like the Concord! Even the dogs of Helga has travelled by supersonic jet, something an ordinary member only can dream of.

But both of them nevertheless claimed to be poor, to own nothing. And both of them did not know where the food, money and clothes they used came from, when asked by the courts, when they faced trial!

And both Lyndon and Osho let the ordinary members work as "slaves", six to seven days a week for nothing, eating lousy food...

And this is still the case in the cult of Lyndon. Lyndon still does not own anything, still lives a good life eating and living in relative luxury, and the members, that work as the slaves of Lyndon, are yelled at and dehumanized because they are not as "frisky" as he is!"

/T

Read more here: http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.com/2009/05/lyndon-larouche-says-eliminate-useless.html

and here: http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.com/2009/04/health-problems-among-older-organizers.html

.

Lyndon LaRouche acts like Mao: "Eliminate the useless eaters"!

2009-05-03T11:38:00.007+02:00

Lyndon LaRouche is right now changing some internal policies that has do do with healthcare. Lyndon often speaks about "health care" and has made political campaigns saying that all people "have the right to healthcare". But in his own cult that is not the case!

Lyndon has had thousands of people working for nothing for him. They have received almost no money and have often worked in LOUSY conditions. The phone team organizers in USA works in dusty and noicy environments, and that off course affects their health.

The organization has, however, given SOME help to the organizers. They have received some health care up unil now... But this is changing.

The organization has a financial crisis and can no longer give money to help all the people in the organization that are ill or disabled, or have a general need of health care. Many members are approaching the 60s and 70s and they have worked in the dusty and noicy environments of the organization six to seven days a week, 14 hours a day, so they, consequently, need a lot of health care by now. But the organization cant afford it any longer!

The new policy of Lyndon is to throw out the "useless eaters". At the factnet XLCR4LIFE published a revealing speech by Lyndon that all of you should read:

"And it’s precisely the quality shown which is absent among the Boomers late this week, here, in Leesburg, in the center of the organization. Because the “me, me, me” concern of the Boomer, the lack of regard for reality, for the state of the universe, for our political role, is a complete breakdown in morality, among a list of people I have. But it was a shock to me that they could be so stupid, so immoral, so withdrawn. Screaming about “My money! My money! My money!” Screaming about health care. And people who are actually, you know, in a sense subsisting here in the organization, because they can’t contribute to it – again, same thing! Complete irresponsibility! Anything I ever said about Boomer, I can say in spades, as a result of what happened here, this past week. That was really Boomerism, in its lowest moral degree, relative to our organization. Real Boomerism."

…Whenever you behave like the typical behavior, or mass behavior among our members in Leesburg this past week. You get the worst result ….

Read it all here: http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showpost.php?p=378618&postcount=1971

I am posting my comment to this speech by Lyndon as a PS to this post!

/T

PS

#1972
05-03-2009, 01:40 AM
European
Paid Member

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 296

When the EEC left the organization in 2006, and many Germans abandoned the insanity of the organization, some German organizers talked about the "cultural revolution" in the ICLC.

The comparison with the maoistic lunacy is actually quite relevant. The witchhunt against the boomers in the LaRoucheorganization, and the way Lyndonsays that the youth in the organization are more brilliant, less blocked and in short MORE IMPORTANT than the older members, clearly shows that this comparison is relevant.

But there are more to it...

I met a chinese man in exile once. He told me a lot of stories about the Chinese cultural revolution. First of all the history was rewritten by Mao and his closest followers. Mistakes made by Mao and the group around Mao, were claimed to be mistakes made by others. In the case of EEC the EEC got all blame for things that Lyndon himself had done and today Lyndon claims that he has known all the time that Molly destroyed the organization (sic!).

If you look at how older people and disabled people, and people that were sick, was treated in the cultural revolution you see the same pattern. This chinese man that I once met told me that his father, a devoted communist and former professor, was ill at the time of the cultural revolution. The students, and the controllers of the students, did not care about that, they told the father that he would not get any more money from the state, and thus would be condemned to death by starvation, or he had to go out in the countryside to work at the farms.

He did not want to die so he went out and worked in the fields for a week, and died out of exhaustion... The son later receivedan angry letter complaining about how useless his father had been that only lasted for a week!

The Chinese man told me about another relative of his, that belonged to the intelligensia and that was cut off from all social security too, due to the cultural revolution. "Go out and work on the filed and work to spread the revolution, otherwise you are a traitor to mankind and the revolution", they said. He was disabled and was forced out and did not return. He too died!

"Useless eaters", it is called. Eliminate the "useless eaters".

The way a leader treats the members of the organization he leads, is very revealing. It shows how he would treat the subjects of a nation, if he ever got the power to ead that nation...

Lyndon "Mao" LaRouche has his own version of a cultural revolution and the "useless eaters" are to be eliminated!

That briefing is DISGUSTING!

Thanks XLCR4LIfe that you published it!

/T

__________________
http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.com/ and http://larouchesources.blogspot.com/

Scientific knowledge according to the LaRouchemovement :o)

2009-04-29T11:32:00.003+02:00

The movement of Lyndon LaRouche don't need a bible, that contains the answers to all possible questions of their life, they have LaRouche himself, the so called "universal genius"!

Here is how the curriculum would look like in the schools, if ever the LaRouchies got political power in the USA.

:o)

Lyndon LaRouche and Nigeria! (part three in a series on Lyndon LaRouche and Africa)

2009-04-28T07:41:00.008+02:00

In december 1997 Helga Zepp LaRouche visited Nigeria and participated at an economic conference there, and she met with several highranking Nigerians, including the President, or rather the military dictator, Sani Abacha. (The gentleman with sunglasses on the picture above. Helga is dressed in white and stands to the right.)

She was introduced to speak right after the dictator himself and she praised Nigerian development projects, and she was thanked afterwards by the dictator:

Helga said: "It is most advantageous that the political leadership of Nigeria wants to shape the future through a ``Vision for the Year 2010.'' There is nothing more important in a world, in which all of the old institutions are collapsing, than to think big; than to have a grand vision for how Africa can overcome the underdevelopment--for which it bears no fault--within a relatively short period of time. For, the moment of the great crisis of the old system is at once an enormous opportunity for a completely new beginning!" ( http://american_almanac.tripod.com/helganig.htm )

The 1997 visit to Nigeria was the highpoint of the cooperation between the LaRouchecult and the Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha.

SANI ABACHA

General Sani Abacha (20 September 1943 - 8 June 1998) was the military dictator of Nigeria from 1993 to 1998. He had made a coup against another dictator in 1993, after which he decladed himself to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.

Lets look at a decription of his rule:

"Early in his presidency, Abacha dissolved all civilian democratic institutions at national and state levels and replaced government and elected officials with military officers. A provisional ruling council of senior army officers, of which he was chairman, was formed. Unofficial political parties and any form of political opposition were suppressed including the pro-democracy movement the National Democratic Coalition. The new and as yet unimplemented constitution crafted in 1989 was abandoned. Abacha's regime enforced its rule through the arrest, imprisonment and execution of dissenters, press censorship and the development of a police state. Amongst the more notable individuals detained by the regime were Chief Abiola, the would-be head of state who died in prison in July 1998; former head of state Olusegun Obasanjo; and environmentalist and journalist Ken Saro-Wiwa who was executed in 1995 despite intense international demand for his release. Saro-Wiwa was killed with eight other Ogoni colleagues from Nigeria's oil rich region who objected to the government's oil policies. Abacha's control of the army was maintained by purging army officers. A former vice president and army officer, Shehu Musa Yar'Adua, was also to die, in prison, in 1997...

Abacha's regime was resistant to both internal and international insistence on human rights reforms, seemingly unaffected by the impact of international sanctions, diplomatic isolation, United Nation's condemnation and Nigeria's suspension from the Commonwealth...

Opinions of Abacha and his military regime vary across Africa and the international community. He is credited with leading the African military intervention in the civil war in Sierra Leone that resulted in the restoration of civilian rule in that country in March 1998. His supporters see him as a strong leader and centrifugal force that sustained ethnically diverse Nigeria as a cohesive state and regional power. His opponents maintain that he was a cruel despot that embezzled almost three billion dollars of public funds into private bank accounts in Europe and the Persian Gulf.

In 1999, the Nigerian Federal Government began efforts to recover the stolen funds. Mohammad Abacha, the late president's eldest son was arrested on related charges of fraud, money laundering and embezzlement and for the murder of Chief Abiola's wife, Alhaja Kudirat. Later, a deal was struck between the Nigerian government and the Abacha family in which all criminal proceedings against Mohammad were dropped in return for eighty percent of the family's liquid assets. It has been reported that the Abacha family has been allowed to retain $100 million of the looted money as part of a protracted settlement." ( http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Abacha/Jul2002AbachaEN.htm )

The most known case of political oppression at the time was the murder of Ken Saro-Wiwa in 1995. The LaRouchemovement had already in 1995 highlevel contacts in the Nigerian government so the internal briefings of the movement basicly denounced Ken Saro-Wiwa as a British agent!

Once again, the same pattern as in the case of Rwanda (and as we shall see in the case of Zimbabwe and Sudan)... All opponents of the fraction the LaRouchecult supports are declared to be agents. The fraction it supports is supported 100% and NOTHING IS SAID ABOUT THE CRIMES THEY COMMIT. It is as if the cult thinks that any critique will harm the cooperation with the dictators and geoncidialists they are in contact with.

As members of the cult we believed that economic development was the path to democracy, and that there was no need to talk about democracy and human rights with these dictators. Everything would be ok in the long run!

SAM ALUKO

The main contact Lyndon LaRouche and Helga Zepp-LaRouche had in Nigeria at the time was the economist and former chairman of the National Economic Intelligence Committee (NEIC), Sam Aluko. He is still LaRouches number one friend in Nigeria.

Aluko has participated at several conferences of the LaRouchecult as one of the speakers. Here is the links to two of them: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2821_aluko.html , http://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2003/bd_schw/aluko.html .

Aluko was chairman of chairman of the Nigerian National Economic Intelligence Committee (NEIC)while General Sani Abacha was dictator of Nigeria. With other words, LaRouche had a DIRECT channel to the Nigerian government!

Sam Aluko is respected by many still. He is a wellknown intellectual figure in Nigeria that has been active for a LONG time, but many question his role during the Abacha regime.

There are also people that question his earlier actions, way back in the days of the Biafra war, and that implies that he was responsible for some kind of crimes back then ( Search for Aluko here: http://messageboard.biafranigeriaworld.com/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=000413 ) but I know too little about the Nigerian history of the time to say anything about this.

Lets return to his role as the respectable establishment figure that supported and legitimized the murderous dictator Abacha. There is an interesting article from this winter, detailing some of this critique that can be found on the internet. "Prof. Sam Aluko: Saint or sinner?"
By Tunde Fagbenle.( http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/forum/main-square/28700-prof-sam-aluko-saint-sinner.html )

"It‘s a question that bothers my mind, with the revered economist‘s evident commitment to what I would call pragmatic intellectualism and his unquestionable integrity clashing furiously with his role in providing some degree of legitimacy to the despised tyrannical regime of late Gen Sani Abacha - throwing up issues of where ego and veiled self-interest starts and genuine nationalism ends.

It is a tough one.

Where should the line be drawn? To what extent should one allow one‘s sense of patriotism and nationalism to carry one in serving one‘s country regardless of the political environment? Can one‘s life, and one‘s role in it, be completely separated from politics?

In looking for answers to these questions, one cannot but take historical perspectives on brutal regimes the world over and the role played by notable and respectable personalities – professionals, academics, scientists, et al – in propping up the regimes, wittingly or unwittingly, through the inadvertent legitimacy their blind-eye turning, only-doing-my-job, position offered.

Let‘s take Hitler. The Nuremberg Trial of many eminent Germans for crime committed against humanity in the name of serving Germany‘s interest (or, more appropriately, The Fuehrer‘s interest) brought to light the complex issue of when moral or ethical imperatives should override ‘national call‘ rationale. Those tried included Hans Frank, who was the President of the Academy of German Law, and Walther Funk who was economic advisor to Hitler (a role akin to that of Aluko for Abacha), and many others; although it must be said that several of them, including Funk, were freed on the grounds that they did not play a ‘lead role‘ in the activities they participated in. But the fact that they were brought to trial was point enough.

Talking of Hitler in relation to Abacha may be stretching the argument too far, even to absurdity. But say that to the many families whose father, mother, or child were brutalised, maimed, or even murdered by agents of that evil regime, and the equation may not be that remote! It is not a question of numbers, not of how many innocent people were killed by a regime; one unjust murder is bad enough.

(...)

I think Abacha was in a class of his own - making any brutality associated with the regimes of Buhari and Babangida, before him, pale into insignificance. And that is the point. Aside from the very criminal sustenance (bearing in mind Babangida did the act) of the annulment of the freest and fairest presidential election the country ever held, Abacha‘s regime abducted, jailed and murdered scores of innocent civilians, even in broad daylight. The list is long: from the dastardly murder of people like Chief Alfred Rewane, Kudirat Abiola, Bagauda Kaltho and many others, to the Gestapo attack on Chief Abraham Adesanya, Chief Alex Ibru, amongst others! Nay, it set itself in virtual war of attrition against the Yoruba ethnic group as a whole for what he considers as their most vociferous and fierce challenge to the continued annulment in general and the insulting detention of the winner of the election, late Chief MKO Abiola, for seeking to claim his mandate, in particular!

(...)

Certainly, Prof Sam Aluko cannot claim ignorance of such monumental atrocities. He either chose not to believe them, projecting into his face as they were, or he chose to be indifferent to them, deciding that the need to help salvage the nation‘s economy was overriding of all issues, including the real threat of dismemberment the nation itself faced politically.

But we must pause to consider what persuaded the elder professor to accept to serve Abacha in the first place, and the benefits derived there-from.

A glimpse is provided in his media appearance. Abacha emissaries, including Gen Oladipo Diya, came to beg for his service, in an ”only-you-can-save-the-economy” fashion (now, who would not be drunk by that?) and he accepted on his own terms, which included being part-time. Aluko also let us know that Abacha respected, indeed accepted virtually all of his economic advice and recommendations! – something that Aluko believes made the country‘s economy formidable in Abacha years.

Why did he continue even when it became clear he was serving the devil? Abacha was no devil, says our professor, in fact he was near enough an angel – he did not loot the treasury, as widely reported (although lately amending that to: perhaps his agents helped themselves to lifting and selling some of the nation‘s crude petroleum on Abacha‘s behalf, something that, according to Aluko, is still happening till today). Moreover, and very importantly, Abacha, for Aluko‘s sake, created Ekiti State as a ”thank you” for having ”really worked for the government,” and, when the issue of Aluko‘s first son‘s name getting on the ”wanted” list for anti-Abacha and pro-democracy activism surfaced, the favoured chief economic adviser used his position in the government to get his son‘s name removed from the list!

(...)

One can then imagine how Bolaji, (the professor‘s oldest child, himself a professor of chemical engineering in the United States) would have felt. I was in the States for some of that ugly period, and Bolaji – a leading crusader against Abacha‘s regime, and a young man with prodigious zest and intellect – suffered severe emotional torment on account of his father‘s chosen counter-position, even while distancing himself from it.

Would Awolowo have wondered if the old professor was going senile, as his friend, Gen Olusegun Obasanjo, lately crudely and uncharitably put it? No one going through the interview published in The Sun newspapers in December would share Obasanjo‘s opinion, though. The professor‘s intellect remains as acute, and his contentions as robust as ever.

But how would history view Professor Sam Aluko‘s support for the Abacha regime at a time the regime was committing the vilest atrocities against his own ethnic group? Was Aluko‘s role purely altruistic? Is our dear uncle a saint or is his defence of Abacha insincere? God dey."

Was Aluko a collaborator or a duped fool? That is the question. What do you think? But why does he not speak up against the Abacha regime today? Good question!

DICTATORS; MADMEN AND GENOCIDIALISTS

To sum up! As I have said before, the fate of Africa lies close to my heart. That is why I always were so impressed by all this "political work" to "save" Africa that the LaRouchecult did.

I legitimized much of my work as a member of the cult by the fact that it, as the "only" political force, cared for Africa.

I participated in the campaigns against the Ugandan dictator Museveni and even congronted him at a UN conference in Copenhagen about the genocide in Rwanda. I participated in the diplomatic work. I wrote articles and gave speeches on the industrialization of Africa. I wrote articles for the EIR in 1994 and 1995 against the UN Population conference in Cairo, detailing the connections between the eugenic movement and the population control "experts". I participated in the insane attempts to support the dictators in Sudan and Zimbabwe. Etc, etc..

All this, since I believed that the organization really cared for Africa. The industrialization of Africa and the end of poverty and starvation there, is something that I still care very much about. The ideas to make the deserts green, that the cult has, is something I still support. I have met ingeneers that comfirm that with some water Africa could really be the breadbasket of the world, and it could be done in environmentaly safe ways.

But the belief the cult has, that dictators with blood on their hands, with the help of Lyndon LaRouche, should transform Africa, is a belief I strongly oppose today.

My transformation came when I asked one simple question...: WHO WAS GOING TO BUILD THE TRANSAQUA, THE RAILROADS ACROSS AFRICA? WHO WAS GOING TO INDUSTRIALIZE AFRICA? IN SHORT: WHO DID THE LAROUCHECULT COOPERATE WITH IN AFRICA?

When I asked that question I begun to look around and I saw dictators, madmen and people with the blood of many people on their hands. And some of them were people I had met at the conferences of the cult.

LET ME RESTATE IT. IF A PERSONAL FRIEND OF MINE DOES SOMETHING REALLY STUPID AND PERHAPS ILLEGAL AND DANGEROUS, LIKE BEATING HIS KIDS OR HIS WIFE, DO I HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO TRY TO SHOW HIM THAT HE IS WRONG, AND PERHAPS WARN OTHERS (THE POLICE!) ABOUT HIM, OR NOT?

IF A POLITICAL FRIEND COMMITTS MURDERS AND AUTROCITIES, DO I AS A POLITICAL LEADER HAVE THE RESPONSIBLITY TO PROTEST AND DENOUNCE THAT, OR NOT?

Lyndon does not, and therefore Lyndon is a dangerous fraud! One might ask why he does not do that. Could it be that Lyndon likes bullies because he himself is one. After all... He used to beat his wife in the early 60s, as the wife herself has acknowledged!

Bully seeks bullies... Equals attracts equals!

/T

To read the earlier posts in this series, click here: http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.com/2009/04/friends-of-lyndon-larouche-in-africa.html

FOR MORE READING

Please look at the documentation by Dennis King on who the friends of LaRouche in Latin America are. You will see that there are many similarities to the work the organization did in Africa: http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-fascism.htm

-

Washington Post. Articles about Lyndon LaRouche!

2009-04-27T16:51:00.006+02:00

Today I am posting some links for you. It is links to a collection of articles in Washington Post about Lyndon LaRouche. I especially recommend these two articles. The first on who Lyndon LaRouche is. The second about his move to a luxurious and wellguarded new estate in Loudoun County, 1985. To quote the second article:

"The people who stay at the Woodburn Estate say there are no mortar emplacements on the premises. But they say guards there carry an array of handguns -- Colt Combat Commanders, Walther PPKs, MAC10s -- and other armaments. There are sandbag-buttressed guard posts near the estate's 13-room Georgian mansion, cement barriers along the road and sharp metal spikes in the driveway."

/T

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/main.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/larou3.htm

What Socrates had to say about Lyndon LaRouche!

2009-04-26T15:47:00.003+02:00

A dialogue written by me, European, on Lyndon LaRouche and the cult he leads. It begins as a parody but when the real question about LaRouches economic competence is discussed the reality almost seems more absurd that the fictious parody!

Some fun for you this sunday!

/T

Click the link to read: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14657541/What-Socrates-had-to-say-about-Lyndon-LaRouche

...

WANTED, for crimes against the humanity! (part two in a series on Lyndon LaRouche and Africa)

2009-04-24T22:23:00.010+02:00

In the first article in this series I showed that the LaRouchecult in its coverage of the genocide in Rwanda, has DE FACTO defended the genocidialists from 1994 onwards.

The tutsies of the RPF are blamed by the cult for the genocide and NOTHING has ever been written (to my knowledge) showing anything evil that the hutu government and its militias did.

I was fooled by this, while I was a member, as where many others. For 10 years I bought the propaganda of the cult that the tutsies were to blame for all evil!

Lets take an exemple of this propaganda. In 2002 EIR wrote a report, Prepared for the Defense Team in the Ntagerura Case. The trial of the former Rwandan (hutu) minister of transportation at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. ( http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2928arusha_uwe.html )

It is mentioned that "that atrocities and mass-killings were committed on both sides of the political divide" but the overall picture one gets is that the tutises were murdering most people and the hutus less. The attacks of RPF (the tutsies) in 1993 and 1994 and earlier are mentioned, but not the Hutu attacks that occured against the RPF at the same time. In the description of the crisis in Congo it is mentioned that the RPF and Uganda sent their troops over the border to hunt for hutu guerilla, but it is not mentioned that this guerilla made vicious attacks against the RPF and the tutsies before that.

In short, one gets the impression in this report and in all previous reports that the RPF and the tutsies killed most people in Rwanda and that they initiated the violence and the hutus did nothing.

Why did the organization say so and who did we cooperate with that gave us such information? To find an answer, look at LaRouches friends in Rwanda!

The strange friends of Lyndon LaRouche: The case of Ntagerura

We have already mentioned one of the friends, the former minister Ntagerura, that the organization wanted to help in 2002 with the report.

He was accused of genocide, complicity in genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II by the ICC. Ntagerura was put to trial in the International Court of Justice and acquitted in two trials in 2004, due to lack of evidence. Lets look at what he was accused of:

According to the accusation, between 1 January and 31 July 1994, Ntagerura reportedly allowed and/or authorised the use of government vehicles, notably coaches, in order to transport militiamen, armed Interahamwe (Hutu extremist militia), civilians, including members of the Tutsi population, as well as weapons and ammunition towards and throughout the Cyangugu prefecture. Furthermore, he was accused of having encouraged and participated in the training of the Interahamwe in the Karengera commune and other communes throughout the territory of Cyangugu prefecture. Again, however, the Third Trial Chamber was unable to establish that these allegations were well founded.

( The Ntagerura case: http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/profile/db/facts/andre_ntagerura_565.html )

The Rwandan government responded to the acquittal in this way: “We are not talking about low level genocidaires , Bagambiki and Ntagerura, participated in the killings at a national level. The two are even among that group of people that were extremists even before the genocide”.

Ok, an acquittal is an acquittal. But the fact that he has given interviews since his acquittal where he claims that no genocide occured, i.e that not many tutsies at all were killed, is very telling.

I would claim that this is what is most important in understanding why the movement of Lyndon LaRouche choosed to defend him in the ICC.

Revisionists united with Lyndon LaRouche!

Lyndon LaRouche and his cult has cooperated with the so called revisionists in Rwanda for a long time, people like Ntagerura. The climax of this cooperation was the 1997 conference for "peace" in Central Africa which featured Lyndon LaRouche as the main speaker!.

Lets read what the EIR wrote at te time:

"On April 26 and 27, 1997, the Executive Intelligence Review, Forum für Frieden and Demokratie (Bonn), and the Schiller Institute, cosponsored a seminar on the crisis in the Great Lakes Region of Africa. Almost exactly 25 years after the genocide against the Hutu population in Burundi began in April of 1972, the participants of the seminar accused the international community of scandalous indifference to the ongoing genocide against the mostly Hutu refugees in Zaire...Jean Gahururu and Ignace Murwanashyaka from Rwanda participated as the cosponsors of the Forum fuer Frieden and Demokratie...", wrote the EIR afterwards ( http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/1997/schiller_pr_05-02-97.html ).

I was there too in 1997 and looking back, it strikes me that no killing of tutsies in 1994 where mentioned at all, and the hutu attacks against Rwanda BEFORE THE INVASION BY THE RPF IN CONGO, were not mentioned either.

No wonder, the cosponsors of the conference was the Rally for the Return of Democracy and Refugees (RDR). It is them that are hidden behind the name Forum für Frieden and Demokratie. RDR is well known for its revisionist ideas, blaming the war in Rwanda entirely on the tutsies and RPF and almost never mentioning anything about any murdered tutsies or the Hutu murders.

Such are the friends of Lyndon LaRouche, revisionists and liars!

The RDR (Rally for the Return of Democracy and Refugees) was created in 1995. Lets hear what one source has to say about them: "By the spring of 1995, conscious that their responsibility for the genocide was damaging to their political efforts and relationships with the international community, the genocidaires adopted a new name—the Rally for the Return of Refugees and Democracy in Rwanda, or RDR. The RDR developed into a political body whose main objective was to mobilize the international community in the return of refugees. Rwandan exiles created a separate movement to focus on military matters—Armed People for the Liberation of Rwanda, or PALIR."( http://www.enoughproject.org/publications/past-due-remove-fdlr-eastern-congo )

Others have said that the RDR is simply a cover up. That in 1994 one militant branch and one political branch was created of what was the former Hutu-led government in Rwanda. In the book "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families", author Philip Gourevitch argued that the RDR is a shadow organization effectively run by former Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) commanders and genocidialists.

And that leads us to FAR and similar groups...

Wanted, for crimes against the humantity and violating the arms embargo!

A closer look at the persons present at the conference in 1997 confirms that the RDR certainly not are the "innocent" peaceful organization it was presented as at the conference in 1997. The RDR (and the LaRouchecult) has claimed all the time that RDR is a peaceful group and that it has nothing to do with the rebels in Congo that were fighting the RPF with weapons.

But why would then so many of its colllaborators get caught smuggling weapons for the guerilla groops that were attacking Rwanda?

At the 1997 conference that Lyndon LaRouche headed, many Africans were present. Lets look at the list of Africans present, as the publication of LaRouche, EIR presented it some days after:

"For Rwanda, the Rally for the Return of Democracy and Refugees (RDR) was represented by its president, Francois Nzabahimana, former Minister of Trade. He led a delegation of representatives from Rwandan refugee organizations from France, E. Rwirangira; from the Benelux countries, Dr. J. B. Butera; from England, J. Habimana; and, from Germany, Str. Musoni. Furthermore, Rwanda Pour Tous was represented by Nkiko Nsengimana. Jean Gahururu and Ignace Murwanashyaka from Rwanda participated as the cosponsors of the Forum fuer Frieden and Demokratie."

One of the co-sponsorers of this conference, is now wanted by the ICC, for crimes against the humanity, Ignace Murwanashyaka!

At the interpol, one can read this: http://www.interpol.com/public/Data/Wanted/Notices/Data/2008/92/2008_24392.asp

"Wanted
MURWANASHYAKA, Ignace

Legal Status
Present family name: MURWANASHYAKA
Forename: IGNACE
Sex: MALE
Date of birth: 14 May 1963 (45 years old)
Place of birth: MUGUSA / BUTARE, Rwanda
Language spoken: English, French, German, Kinyarwanda
Nationality: Rwanda

Offences

Categories of Offences: CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN, CRIMES AGAINST LIFE
AND HEALTH, CRIMES AGAINST LIFE AND HEALTH CONSPIRACY, GENOCIDE,
ORGANIZED CRIME /TRANSNATIONAL CRIME, TERRORISM, WAR CRIMES
Arrest Warrant Issued by: KIGALI / Rwanda"

The Wikipedia entry explains the case more in depth:

"Ignace Murwanashyaka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dr. Ignace Murwanashyaka (born 14 May 1963) is the current leader of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, a Rwandan Hutu rebel group operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The FDLR are responsible for large scale human rights violations and crimes against humanity, including rape on a massive scale.[1] [2]
Murwanashyaka was born in Butare and has studied in West Germany. In November 2005 he was blacklisted by the United Nations for violating an arms embargo aimed at promoting peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and subjected to a travel bans and assets freeze.[3]
He was arrested on 8 April 2006 in Mannheim, Germany for immigration violations and released shortly after. On 26 May 2006 preliminary investigation were opened against him for "Initial suspicion of involvement in crimes against humanity in the Democratic Republic of Congo", but the prosecution has since been abandoned. Since then no action has been taken by German authorities. [4] Rwanda indicated it would seek his extradition for alleged crimes committed during the Rwandan Genocide[5] and has issued an arrest warrant [6].
[edit]References

^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/12/congo.international
^ http://www.enoughproject.org/reports/congo_fdlr
^ Last updated on 6 February 2007
^ http://www.taz.de/1/politik/deutschland/artikel/1/der-fall-ignace-m/?src=HL&cHash=6963e1a33b
^ JURIST - Paper Chase: Suspected Rwanda war criminal arrested in Germany
^ http://www.interpol.com/public/Data/Wanted/Notices/Data/2008/92/2008_24392.asp"

If the RDR were so separated from the guerilla warfare, why this?

Wanted, for crimes against the humantity and violating an arms embargo!

A second known armsdealer participated at the "peaceful" conference presided by LaRouche in 1997, Straton Musoni. He is too a known revisionist. In 2007 the UN and the US Treasury listed him as wanted, for arms deals!

http://africannewsanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/03/us-cracks-down-on-congo-arms-dealers.html

"The U.S. Treasury Department Friday named seven companies and three
individuals who have directly contributed to the conflict in Congo...

The third individual to be named was Straton Musoni, who is the first
vice president of the Forces Democratiques pour la Liberation du
Rwanda, which is largely made up of Hutu extremists who led the
Rwandan genocide. The group is now impeding the disarmament and
repatriation of combatants in Congo."

He apparently did so in cooperation wit the above mentioned suspected war criminal. This is what the United Nations write about the two armsdealers:

"(h) Ignace Murwanashyaka, listed by
the Committee for being a member of an illegal armed group and for arms
trafficking, currently resides in Germany and isstill recognized by
FDLR-FOCA as the President of the armed group’s political branch. The
Group has gathered information from demobilized FDLR
combatantsregarding his continued involvement in political and
military decision-making within FDLR through frequent contact with
field commanders; (i) Straton Musoni, listed by the Committee for
being a member of an illegalarmed group and for arms trafficking,
currently resides in Germany and is stillrecognized by FDLR-FOCA as
the Vice-President of the armed group’s politicalbranch;"

( http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:V6C-OlRWD2sJ:www.undemocracy.com/S-2008-772.pdf+"Straton+Musoni""+Rwanda&cd=15&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se )

In short!

In this article I have only had the time to look at three individuals and one organization that Lyndon LaRouche and his organization has cooperated with, They might not be friends today, I dont know. But the fact is that the RDR, these individuals, and the cult headed by Lyndon LaRouche, still today continue to claim that the hutu government and militia played no, or almost no, role in the genocide in Rwanda in the 90s.

800.000 people, mostly tutsies were killed in 100 days in 1994, and still today, 15 years after the massacre, Lyndon LaRouche and his cult has not said a single word about the crimise of the Hutu regime, not even mentioning them, and has not with one single word said that most victimes (95%) were tutsies.

As a matter of fact, the brainwashing inside the cult is so immense that most members still believe that it was HUTUS that were murdered in 1994, not tutsies!

There is only one word for that: DISGUSTING!

/T

To the first article: http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.com/2009/04/friends-of-lyndon-larouche-in-africa.html

FOR MORE READING

Please look at the documentation by Dennis King on who the friends of LaRouche in Latin America are. You will see that there are many similarities to the work the organization did in Africa: http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-fascism.htm

Please do a search on the google for more examples of the cooperation between the RDR and LaRouche: http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&safe=off&num=100&q="Rally+for+Democracy+in+Rwanda"++LaRouche&btnG=Sök&meta=

.

The friends of Lyndon LaRouche in Africa: dictators, lunatics and genocidialists. (The first in a series)

2009-04-22T17:48:00.014+02:00

Sometimes Lyndon LaRouche and his cult is described as a racist, nazi cult. I was a member of it once ans disagree. Sometimes the will to try to explain what Lyndon and his cult is like, leads people to draw conclusions that are scary, but misses the point. The racist/nazi label is such a one. It is misleading. The organization is multicultural and "colourblind". It recruits actively people of all creeds, cultures and races.

This does not, however, mean that the cult is not dangerous. Sometimes the will to put labels makes people blind to the fact that potential totalitarian genocidialists today, do not look and act the same way as the totalitarian regimes in the past. So too with Lyndon and his cult.

"Saving" Africa!

To fully understand Lyndon LaRouche, I believe one should look at his work in Africa!

As a member I spent much time and energy working with Africa. I was naive. I thought I did something good for Africa. I did not!

Five years after I left the organization I now look back at what I did. Yes, we promoted some economical solutions for Africa: industrialization, irrigation, revolts against the IMF and the World Bank, details about HIV and AIDS. It sounds good, in a sense... Some of it certainly sounds good still today. But WHO was going to build these things, who were the once that was to take up the fight against IMF and the World Bank... Who were the once that should administer the "greening of Africa" that we spoke so much about?

In short, WHO did we cooperate with, and WHO are friends of LaRouche still today?

And this is scary stuff. Just look at the friends of "the old frisky geezer" Lyndon laRouche... It is Mugabe... It is Bashir in Sudan... It was the South African aparthaid regime... It was nigerian dictators... Etc...

And it was people responsible for the greatest genocide Africa has ever seen so far!

15 years since the genocide!

I will start by looking at what the organization did after the genocide in Rwanda.

The genocide occured nearly 15 years ago. In April the airplane of the Rwandan president Habyarimana and the Burundian president was shot down over Kigali. As a result the violence of the Hutu regime against tutsies and oppositional hutus began. RPF (tutsies) launches a major offensive from Uganda. The systematic massacre began at the same time. Within 100 days around 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. Hutu militias then fled to Zaire, taking with them around 2 million Hutu refugees. For years the hutus continued their guerilla warfare against the tutsies using civilian hutus as shields.

Some time after the organization, under the leadership of Lyndon LaRouche, started a campaign to blame the genocide entirely on RPF and the tutsies.

Looking back I can now see that this was done in a very crazy way. We acknowledged that about a million were murdered, but we never mentioned WHO had murdered them, only that the RPF had "initiated" the violence by the invasion. Thus the genocidialists were not blamed at all. I never heard anything negative about the hutu regime.

Ok. The actions of the RPF, and "former" ugandan intelligence officer Kagame, should be looked at closely. Some things they have done over the years does not look good at all. But still!

To blame the tutsies only, not the hutu regime that murdered 99,9% of all that were murdered in a systematic and planned genocide is almost like if one would have blamed the jews for the holocaust... against the jews... in WW2, and thereby freeing the nazis from the responsibility!

You know a person by looking at his or her friends!

The answer to why the organization, and Lyndon LaRouche, supported the Hutu genocidialists is not known to me. I, however, believe that the organization had friends in the hutu regime already before the genocide 15 years ago, it could have been that they were willing to cooperate after 1994 in order to get allies... I dont know exactly. But I KNOW for sure that they cooperated, it is PROVABLE, as we shall see in the coming posts.

In the years after the genocide the organization started to cooperate with people that have denied that ever a genocide occured, and, what is worse, with known ACTIVE SUPPORTERS of the genocide. Some of the "good friends" of the cult are even wanted by the International Court in hague for crimes against the humanity.

Such are the friends of the great "Humanist" Lyndon LaRouche!

I will in a series of posts go through the details of who some OPEN SUPPORTERS of LaRouche in Africa are! After reading my posts I want you to ask the question who the SECRET supporters are!

This is scary stuff!

/T

Here is the links to all posts in this series:

* A previous post on Lyndon LaRouche in Africa can be found here: http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.com/2009/04/lyndon-larouche-and-africa-development.html

THE SERIES:

* 1) This post, The friends of Lyndon LaRouche in Africa: dictators, lunatics and genocidialists: http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.com/2009/04/friends-of-lyndon-larouche-in-africa.html

* 2) Wanted, for crimes against the humanity, the case of LaRouches friends in Rwanda: http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.com/2009/04/wanted-for-crimes-against-humanity-part.html

* 3) Lyndon LaRouche and Nigeria: http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.com/2009/04/lyndon-larouche-and-nigeria-part-three.html

FOR MORE READING

Please look at the documentation by Dennis King on who the friends of LaRouche in Latin America are. You will see that there are many similarities to the work the organization did in Africa: http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-fascism.htm

.

An ex. LYM member writes about friendship and organizing

2009-04-22T14:10:00.004+02:00

I found a beautiful post in one blog today. It is about a member of the LaRouche organization that died recently; a wonderful person called John Morris. I met him in 1992 in Philadelphia where I stayed at his and M:s place for a week.

My blogpost can be found here:
http://larouchesources.blogspot.com/2009/04/usa-2009-ex-lym-member-about-cult.html

If you want to read the original post, and perhaps comment it, look here:
http://anotherflop.blogspot.com/2009/04/in-spite-of-larouche-and-because-of-him.html

/T

Health problems among older organizers?

2009-04-21T08:58:00.009+02:00

Today I am posting an exchange between me and a person that commented one of my posts!

There are an increasing number of older organizers in the USA that get health problems. Much due to the methods used while organizing. Older members are locked up in a dusty and noicy rooom seven days a week for 30 years. Off course that effects their health.

The organization is not taking responsibility for the result of their policies. Least of all do the "old geezer", Lyndon LaRouche, do so!

Do not blame the "war" for mankind.

The lousy environment the members of the organizations work in, especially in the USA, and the loooooong days which they spend in the offices or on the "field" (seven days or six and a half days a week) are often motivated by the organization with "that the organization is in war". As in war, the conditions therefore have to be less good.

But once again. Only a lousy, lousy, lousy commander would ever let their troops work seven days a week. Even Patton, that believed that soldiers could learn to live with just two hours sleep a night, and still be efficient (sic!), knew that once in a while the soldiers need to rest and come away from the battlefield and that they need the BEST POSSIBLE environment around themselves.

Only a cult leader, a slavery proponent, or a mad general, would make the soldiers work as the "soldiers" of the American organization do!

And this is now the model for the organization worldwide!!!

Scary!

/T

PS

HERE IS THE EXCHANGE

Freedomfighter said...

Thanks for the answer, but you repeat what you already said in the text - my question was if you think the many early deaths among many american LaRouche-full time members might have to do with this slavery? You are probably not a doctor, but that was my question and it would be interesting to hear what you as a former full time member think about it and if you know what other members in America thought about it etc?

APRIL 20, 2009 6:29 PM
European said...
Well...

I think it does not promote their health. I think that organizers that work as much as they did, and DO, in the American organization will die an early death.

Organizing differed between Europe and USA. In Europe we used to work less than in USA. This might differ now when Lyndon has are pushing "american" fundraising methods and "american" youth organizing as the model for worldwide organizing.

I remember visiting USA in 2003. I spent some time in the offices and worked with the fund raising teams there. The working conditions were less than LOUSY.

In Baltimore they had a large sterile, dusty room with about 10 people (boomers) sitting in a kind of circle with their desks. The level of noice was GREAT. I use hearing aid (I have heard bad since I was a kid) and could not organize on the phones. I could not hear a thing with ten other people shouting to get heard. I heard from some of the other phone-organizers that they are getting hearing problems. NO WONDER!

And how often are the carpets cleaned? How often are the stacks of literature removed and the dust cleaned away?

The organizers on the phones are sitting all days a week in an unheatlthy environment.

It is not exactly healthy either to be outdoor in the city all days...

Ok. The Baltimore local might be a special case. But look at Leesburg and Philly! Ok, the older organizers in Philly had flowers and screens to lower the noice level and create a nicer environment in the room where they spent most of their lives. The baltimore local had none of this! But still. I, who was mainly a phone organizer in Sweden, could not work on the phones in there either, due to the insane noice level.

I ask myself if the older organizers show signs of being hearing impaired and if they show signs of asthma and similar allergical reactions?

I already know the answer! Yes, they do!!! In 2003 I saw that!

Do they get treatment for this? Do they get hearing aid? And is it ackowledged by Lyndon that the health problems are due to the organization? Is he thankful because they have sacrificed so much for him?

Good question!

/T

FACTNET!

2009-04-18T07:40:00.003+02:00

Today I will recommend you to visit the discussion on factnet about LaRouche. This is a place were you can follow an ongoing discussion about the nature of this cult, and the cultleader.

http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showthread.php?t=12941

PS

Here is an answer I posted to a comment on my blog. A person asked why LaRouche is seen as Christ by so many members. (One of his friends in LYM in Sweden does so.)

"We belived that LaRouche was like Christ, yes, and like Socrates. Or even superior of both of them!

Some believed so in a religious sense (but very few), some in a pseudoreligious one. Others believed so because there was similarities in the "political work" of Christ and LaRouche (as we saw it). I would say that for most members they were the same kind of POLITICAL force, but as the cultleader he was this admiration had religious similarites!

I still remember in 1992 when LaRouche was in jail, and I visited USA, that many members had photos of LaRouche in their wallets, or on tables like a house altar. I remember that the person managing the finances in Baltimore lighted a candle, in front of a photo of him, EVERY DAY to REMEMBER AND ADORE LaRouche.

/T

LYNDON LAROUCHE says: "Put the environmentalists in prison!"

2009-04-16T11:38:00.004+02:00

Lyndon LaRouche has intensified his campaign against environmentalists. Now he calls them nazis, and since they are nazis they should be put in prison!

"It's like the whole environmentalist movement. The whole environmentalist movement is one gigantic, anti-scientific fraud! There's not a single bit of truth in any of it. It's a faker. A guy says "I'm an ecologist, a scientific ecologist." All right, you're that? Well, I guess that's better than being a toadstool, I guess, huh? Because they're not worth anything. They're liars! Any guy who says, "I'm a scientist," and who says this free-energy policy is good, you know he's a faker. He's a fraudster. He belongs in prison. He's committed fraud. Shouldn't he go to prison? He's committing a fraud which is causing people to suffer. Shouldn't he go to prison? Well, put him in prison! They want to be institutional? Fine."

http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2009/webcasts/3615april11_qanda.html

Please look at this report of a LYM campaign, calling environmentalists nazis, on the universities in USA too!

http://forum.wwu.edu/node/4176
http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showpost.php?p=378284&postcount=1834
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y185/brittn826/LaRouche.jpg

Do you still doubt whether LaRouche is a fascist or not, and whether the LaRouche Youtmovement (LYM) is a fascist cult or not?

/T

CULTS: Danger Signs in Cults

2009-04-15T16:56:00.001+02:00

Developing objective early warning signs:

If one wishes to develop objective criteria for distinguishing harmful or potentially harmful religious organizations from harmless religions, one needs to place oneself in the position of a public policy maker. From this perspective, religions that raise the most concern are those groups that tangibly, physically harm members and/or non-members, or engage in other anti-social/illegal acts. However, a public policy maker might well respond that this post facto criterion is too little too late, and that what is needed are criteria that could act as early warning signs--criteria indicating that a previously innocuous group is potentially "going bad." The following discussion will make a stab at developing such criteria, with the caveat that the presence of the less serious factors listed below in any given group does not automatically mean they are on the verge of becoming the next Heaven's Gate.

Charismatic Leader: As part of this discussion, we shall be referring to a few false criteria for distinguishing a healthy from an unhealthy religion. In the first place, the mere fact that a group is headed up by a charismatic leader does not automatically raise a red flag. This is because new religions are much like new businesses: new businesses are almost always the manifestation of the vision and work of a single entrepreneur. In contrast, few if any successful businesses are the outgrowth of the work of a committee.

Divine Authority: Also, to found a religion, a leader usually makes some sort of claim to special insight or to special revelation that legitimates both the new religion and the leader's right to lead. The founder may even claim to be prophet, messiah or avatar. While many critics of alternative religions have asserted that the assumption of such authority is in itself a danger sign, too many objectively harmless groups have come into being with the leader asserting divine authority for such claims to be meaningful danger signs.

Use of Authority: Far more important than one's claim to authority is what one does with the authority once he or she attracts followers who choose to recognize it. A minister or guru who focuses her or his pronouncements on the interpretation of scripture or on other matters having to do with religion proper is far less problematic than a leader who takes it upon her- or himself to make decisions in the personal lives of individual parishioners, such as dictating (as opposed to suggesting) who and when one will marry. The line between advising and ordering others with respect to their personal lives can, however, be quite thin. A useful criterion for determining whether or not this line has been crossed is to examine what happens when one acts against the guru's advice: If one can respectfully disagree about a particular item of personal--as opposed to religious--advice without suffering negative consequences as a result, then the leadership dynamics within the group are healthy with respect to authority issues.

One of the clearest signs that leaders are overstepping their proper sphere of authority is when they articulate certain ethical guidelines that everyone must follow except for the guru or minister. This is especially the case with a differential sexual ethic that restricts the sexual activity of followers but allows leaders to initiate liaisons with whomever they choose.

Above the Law: Perhaps the most serious danger sign is when a religious group places itself above the law, although there are some nuances that make this point trickier than it might first appear. All of us, in some sphere of life, place ourselves above the law, if only when we go a few miles per hour over the speed limit or fudge a few figures on our income tax returns. Also, when push comes to shove, almost every religion in the world would be willing to assert that divine law takes precedence over human law--should they ever come into conflict. Hence a group that, for example, solicits donations in an area where soliciting is forbidden should not, on that basis alone, be viewed as danger to society. Exceptions should also be made for groups or individuals who make a very public protest against certain laws judged as immoral, as when a contentious objector goes to jail rather than be drafted into the military.

On the other hand, it should be clear that a group leader who consistently violates serious laws has developed a rationale that could easily be used to legitimate more serious anti-social acts. Examples that come readily to mind are Marshall Hertiff, founder/leader of Heaven's Gate, who regularly ducked out on motel bills and who was once even arrested for stealing a rental car, and Swami Kirtananda, founder of the New Vrindavan community, who was caught authorizing the stealing of computer software before being arrested for ordering the murder of a community critic. Documentable child abuse and other illegalities committed within the organization are also covered by this criterion.

End of the World Scenarios: Another misconceived criterion is perceiving groups as dangerous because of apocalyptic theologies. Almost every religion in the larger Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition has an apocalyptic theology, even the traditional peace churches that forbid members from participating in the military. Thus, contrary to the assertions of some contemporary critics of religion, having an apocalyptic theology does not, in itself, raise a red flag. This is because in most apocalyptic scenarios it is God and his angels who fight the final battle, not flesh-and-blood human beings. The human role is spiritual, and the "saved" fight a spiritual war, not a literal, physical war.

An apocalyptic theology is only dangerous when individual followers believe they are going to be called upon to be foot soldiers in God's army, and prepare themselves by stocking up on weapons and ammunition. Groups that come to mind here are some of the Identity Christian churches who see themselves as preparing to fight a literal war with God's enemies. On the other hand, a community's possession of firearms--in the absence of such a theology of physical confrontation--is probably not dangerous, if no other danger signs are present. If the simple possession of firearms by members was a significant danger sign, then the Southern Baptist Convention would be the most dangerous "cult" in the nation.

Salvation: Another false, yet frequently voiced criterion is that religious groups are dangerous which see only themselves as saved and the rest of the world as damned. Like apocalypticism, this trait is far too widespread among traditional religions to constitute an authentic danger sign. A more meaningful characteristic should be how a religion actually treats non-members.

Group Isolation: Another criterion is a group's relative isolation. This trait is somewhat more complex than the others we have examined. On the one hand, there are abundant examples of traditional religions establishing communities or monastic centers apart from the larger society that have posed no danger to anyone. On the other hand, some of the worst abuses have taken place in the segregated (usually communal) sub-societies of certain minority religions. From the suicidal violence of People's Temple to the externally-directed violence of AUM Shinrikyo, it was the social dynamics found in an isolated or semi-isolated community that allowed such extreme actions to be contemplated.

In order to flag this characteristic while simultaneously avoiding stigmatizing every religion that sets up a segregated society as being potentially dangerous, it might be best to invert this trait and state it as a counter-indicator. In other words, rather than asserting that any religion with a partially isolated community is potentially dangerous, let us instead assert that the relative lack of such boundaries indicates that the group in question is almost certainly not dangerous.

Deception: A final early warning sign is a group's readiness to deceive outsiders. Some critics have asserted that a recruiter who invites a potential convert to a dinner without mentioning that the event is being sponsored by such-and-such church is deceptive. Others have criticized religions possessing a hierarchical system of knowledge to which only initiates are privy. These kinds of criticisms are silly. When a guru publicly asserts that no one in his organization is involved in illegal drugs and police later find a LSD laboratory in his basement, that's deception.

Warning signs:

To summarize, the traits we designated above as early warning signs of 'bad religion'" are:

The organization is willing to place itself above the law. With the exceptions noted earlier, this is probably the most important characteristic.

The leadership dictates (rather than suggests) important personal (as opposed to spiritual) details of followers' lives, such as whom to marry, what to study in college, etc.

The leader sets forth ethical guidelines members must follow but from which the leader is exempt.

The group is preparing to fight a literal, physical Armageddon against other human beings.

The leader regularly makes public assertions that he or she knows is false and/or the group has a policy of routinely deceiving outsiders.

Finally, we noted that, while many benign religions establish semi-segregated communities, socially dangerous religions are almost always isolated or partially isolated from the larger society.

These five traits are about as close as one can get to legitimate, objective criteria for judging whether or not a given religious organization is going--or has gone--"bad." With the exception of placing the group's actions above the law, none of these characteristics, taken by themselves, are necessarily cause for alarm. On the other hand, a group possessing more than one or two of the above traits might well bear closer scrutiny. As a corollary to this line of analysis, minority religions possessing none of the above traits are, from a public policy standpoint, almost certainly harmless.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/safe_sec.htm

New postings on my anti-LaRouchian sourceblog

2009-04-14T11:47:00.003+02:00

New recent posts on http://larouchesources.blogspot.com !

Article about LYM from 2006: The Cult of Lyndon LaRouche!

http://larouchesources.blogspot.com/2009/04/usa-cult-of-lyndon-larouche-confessions.html

Article from 1996 on the methods of the australian organization of LaRouche, the CEC- http://larouchesources.blogspot.com/2009/04/australia-families-fight-back-article.html

HOW TO DETERMINE IF A GROUP IS A DESTRUCTIVE CULT

2009-04-14T11:38:00.004+02:00

HOW TO DETERMINE IF A GROUP IS A DESTRUCTIVE CULT

"The cult has basically only two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising."

http://www.factnet.org/rancho5.htm

Q) Anybody can unfairly attack a group they disagree with by calling it a cult or saying they are using coercive mind control. How does FACTNet prevent this type of problem and determine fairly whether or not a group is a cult?

A) FACTNet uses specific criteria to determine if a mind control system has been used, and does not suggest organizations are destructive or dangerous cults without careful research and determination that the evidence fits definite criteria. These criteria are threefold.

The first set of criteria comes from the group' use of a specific set of mind control tactics. Please see "A technical overview of mind control tactics at http://www.factnet.org/rancho1.htm for details or see http://www.factnet.org/coercivemindcontrol.html for a shorter version.

These two documents are derived from the work of Dr. Margaret Singer professor emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley the acknowledged leading authority in the world on mind control and cults.

The second set of criteria has to do with defining other common elements of mind control systems, as defined by Robert Jay Lifton's eight point model of thought reform. Please see "Robert Jay Lifton's Eight Point Model of Thought Reform" also at http://www.factnet.org/rancho1.htm. If most points in this model are being used in a cultic organization, it is most likely a dangerous and destructive cult.

The third set of criteria have to do with defining common elements of destructive and dangerous cults.The following section will help clarify what some of those specific elements and criteria are.

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.

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.

Read more here: http://www.factnet.org/rancho4.htm

How Lyndon LaRouche compares himself to Jesus. (Posts from the factnet)

2009-04-13T12:07:00.004+02:00

Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 3:18 pm:

I wish to shed some info on how Lyn has often compared himself to Jesus Christ over the years. First, you have to see what we were doing in the 1970's when the NCLC was formed on college campuses. In that era we were hard core Marxists, who of course, could only rely on Lyn to be the Marxist expert. The Campaigners we published were on Fuerbach and a general Marxist review of Christianity. We also attacked the hispanic cultures for being impotent because of the backwardness of folling Catholicism.

To sum up, we were Marxists and had no interest in Church or Religion or God. We had so many crazy Rockefeller mobilizations going on that these mobilizations often seemed to peak during holidays. The mark of a committed LCer was distributing leaflets and such during masses on Sunday and deploying on Xmas or Easter.

Little was known of Lyn's childhood and how his parents had their own sect operating in the New England area among Quakers. The family was known to be quite the trumpeter of God and caused a lot of mischief among different Quaker groups. What we ould be reading in our magazines and New Solidarities was the concept that we in the LC were going to be potent and God Like in transforming the human species. The operating word was first "Potent" in our attacks on the left. The next lingo for us was "Hubris". We had many local classes on the question of how powerfull the devil was in exercising free will. This morphed into our "Fusion" Campaigner which had a painting by William Blake on the cover about giving fire to man.

This stuff continued for awhile until we made our move to the right side of delusions and now we had Lyn writing about Christian economics and the conspiracy of the month club now involved the Vatican. The enemies of the Vatican were now our enemies and we included the Jesuits and the Knights of Malta and anyhting from Venice. We repeatedle told the members that Lyun has an inside track to the vatican through Cardinal Ratzinger who was in our daily briefings virtually daily.

That does sound bizarre, doesn't it.

Lyn and Helga were able to get a photo op in the vatican and I think Lyn was the best man for millionaire heir Lewis Dupont Smith's photo op in the Vatican as well. Dupont was marrying his sweetheart while Lyn was trying to marry Lewis's 10 million dollar inheritance.

If you are in the org long enough and then leave, you figure out some things later. One of the functions of the org was to be Lyn's revenge against his childhood and early enemies of delusions. One of the fascinating quirks of our enemies list was the American Friends Service Committee. A pacifist org which decades earlier had a run in with the Larouche clan in Mass. One day, the AFSC became another part of the hydra we were going to kill with card table shrines. The AFSC was now part of a world wide plot involving depopulation and was also part of a plot to assasinate Lyn and Helga.

Keep in mind that once we hit the 1980's. assasination plots were a daily part of the briefings and led to endless mobilizations which of course needed hundreds of thousands of dollars to stop. It was of no concern to Lyn and Helga nad the various leaders that members were getting very sick from the lunacy of going 24/7 and were being starved. The era was one of making a member think that his or her request for 5 bucks was going to cause Lyn's death. In many locals, we had NC's order stop payment on rent and utility checks to send money to security.

As the 1980's progressed, we started issuing worthless promisorry notes in the millions and running variouys check kiting and credit card scams. Investigations were underway and almost all of the lawsuits filed against us were kept secret from members.

Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 3:24 pm:

The briefings had numerous memos by Lyn about Satan at this time. Instead of Satan being our friend for defying God and giving fire to man, the members were now being tempted by Satan. This led to many memos by Lyn about how anyone who offers info, talks or cooperates with a Grand Jury or investigator is now doing Satan's work. Besides wishing to destroy the human species, Satan was after Lyn himself.

Lyn began his speeches by talking about "Agape" and his love of the world and committment to keep it from being destroyed. His crusade was a selfless one in which NO ONE else could satop the collapse of civilization except himself. You could be at a one conference after another where Lyn would repeat the mantra "I have measured the leadership of the world, and they have all failed. No one has the guts to save civilization as we know it except me. I do not run for president cause I need the job. The job is to save the human species"

This end of the world approach was always used by Lyn as it works. All you have to do is use either the words "Civilization" or "The Human Species" or "The world economy" to a bunch of college drop outs yutes and you are in business for a few more years.

Lyn would now talk about himself in the same breath as Christ by bringing in "Gethsemane" into his writings. This happened after we staged a play about Socrates death at a Virginia conference. That line is still used to explain to gullible yutes that credit card scams did no exist in the 1980s but we were prosecuted for teaching the yutes about secrets known only to the inner elite.

For many, many months, Gethsemane was the issuse. Lyn would describe his life as being trapped like an animal because of assasination threats . Lyn was now alone as his apostles like Gus Axios and the evil members in Detroit sold him out for silver. Lyn had the wieght of the world on his shoulders as he was getting ready to die for the sin of saving humanity.

In reality, Lyn and Helga had a massive estate in Virginia with endless Rheingau and a staff to rival any Baron. The members on the phone team were the ones being indicted . Lyn was also planning an escape to Indonesia or some nearby country to avoid extradition laws according to former security members and contacts.

The Gethsemane schtick continued to build up and the members were basically told that Lyn is going to jail becasue you did not raise enough money for a legal defense. The reality was that we raised more money in legal money than we were accused of absconding with by the prosecutors. The prosecution had deals for us to sign which would have resulted in a small fine, some money being paid back and suspended sentences. Instead, Lyn now became the best lawyer on the planet and mounted his version of a case which got us both convicted and laughed out of court. Lyn also got indicted for income tax fraud where he neglected to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's for several years.

Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 3:29 pm:

This now led to another LC version of insanity where we made the members feel proud that they are going to jail for decades. In one sense, jail was a step up from the LC where you at least got three squares a day, your rent was paid and you now had health care.

Here is a speech by Lyn which has appeared in several forms for different members.

"Events have defined the legal actions against me and my friends as a Third Trial of Socrates. The trial in Alexandria might have been written by the same Magi which ordered its agents in the Democratic Party of Athens to arrange the trial of Socrates. The same Magi-force, acting through its pawn, the Emperor Tiberius, used the same tactic against Jesus Christ.

"This method, of the Trial of Socrates, was adopted by my adversaries, because circumstances have long molded me to walk in imitation of Christ...This presents me now with my Gethsemane, in face of which prospect I conduct myself with the image of Gethsemane clearly before my eyes. If I am killed, I shall die as a political martyr, who has walked to his prescribed doom in the imitation of Christ, as should all Christians in kindred circumstances.

"This is not a personal posture; it is a deliberate historical act. In such a time as this, one man among men must act precisely so, that his conduct, even unto death, might unleash those forces which must be unleashed if humanity is to escape the total destruction made certain by a continued adherence of "Hermes" masters to their current policy-matrices.

From the standpoint of "Hermes" masters, I act to unleash the Furies upon them.

" If I die in the course of the conduct I have imposed upon myself, it shall become the case, for reasons beyond the comprehension of my enemies, that there shall soon ensue that which pagans will regard as the Furies unleashed. In that sense, should they kill me, those pagans will come to imagine that I have reached out from my grave to destroy everything which they represent.

" We each have but one brief mortal life, which life we gain in total only to the degree, that when the time comes, as it did for Christ, we know how to spend it....My departure unleashes the Furies, which were likely to destroy all nations and populations which survive me.

Then, there is nothing but those primal conditions, under which conditions nothing but a Ruetlioath sort of anti-Bolshevik "Peoples War" resistance globally, might achieve the

success which permits civilized life on this planet to be resumed at some later time. If the principals of "Hermes" will not accept the role of what I represent in the present, then I curse them with their imminent future, in which their species will have no posterity, one way or the

other."

Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 3:36 pm:

While Lyn was in the slammer, many Leesburg members starting taking his lessons about Christianity seriuously. Now we had many members attending Church in Leesburg and joining the various denominations. The Jewish members converted and now we had a much different group of members from when they joined in the 1970s.

I suspect one reason Lyn despises these "boomers" is because of what Boris Bad wrote. Many of these former members have revealed a lot of what happened in the org and have revealed hoaxes like the Chris White brainwashing story among others.

To show you how insane some people became over the years. Here is an exerpt from Rochelle Ascher about Lincoln at a conference. Look up her name and see how much money she took from our contacts and was convicted for.

"There has not been in American history, until Lyndon LaRouche, a man such as Abraham Lincoln. When we look at the situation in the world today, and that in the U.S., the situation Lincoln found himself in was equally, if not more, devastating. Surrounded by traitors on all sides, with a totally bankrupt economy, he acted as no one expected him to act. The economic mobilization carried out during those four years, under conditions of brutal war in which more Americans died than in World Wars I and II combined, is unparalleled in U.S. and, possibly, world history.

The fact that Lyndon LaRouche sits in a federal prison, while the fate of 6 billion souls depends on his freedom and the implementation of his economic policy, defines the task at hand.

If Lincoln could do it, with what he faced, so, too, can we. We must free LaRouche to bring back to this dying nation and this dying world that for which Lincoln and so many others gave their lives...

We went through earlier how the org changed itself to try to make new money among born again Christians by publishing material about Satanism and Rock music and Video games. This farce is what the LYM can look forward to for a loooooong time.

My next posts will show how long card table shriners can expect to man their tables. Always keep in mind that these are my recollections and other member's memories are always usefull to explain how the org worked on so many layers.

Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 10:55 am:

The current LYM should take a close look at the elderly members in their local offices who stumble around and get yelled at by the NC. Each of those remaining dead enders was once a college drop out yute who left everything to "Build the Larouche Movement" , just like the new yutes today.

Lyn and Helga are used to the finer things in life. Helga is is known to have bad taste, but expensive taste. Think of her like a bloated Elvis meets Larouche meets Herman Goering mind meld without the musical talent of Elvis. Don't step on her Jack boots instead of Blue Suede shoes.

Some of you may have thought that the card table shrine deployments were only going to last a few weeks or months while the campaigns are going on. Well, you should have figured out by now that as long as Lyn and Helga have to consume, you have to raise money. The org has a never ending supply of Lyn's delusional enemies and scenarios to keep you hopping for decades.

Today's example is a nice guy named Matt Guice. I spoke to him a few times, decades ago about his story. He joined a local in Canada in the mid 1970's and has been manning a card table shrine ever since. Along the way I think he married another member named Nancy. His real partner was an airport card table shriner named Mike Lepig. Both of them spent years and years together at airports and NYC card table shrines.

30 YEARS LATER, Matt is still trying to build the larouche Movement as this article from Morris County NJ pionts out.

"Matt Guice is an audio technician by profession. But these days, the 55-year-old Ridgefield man is working for Lyndon LaRouche, one of the zanier of the perennial presidential candidates. Guice is making the rounds and camping out for a day outside post offices in Morris County telling all who stop by about the evils of the current presidential administration.

Tuesday found him in Succasunna. His table was flanked by signs that read, "Dump Cheney Now," and another one with the message (above a likeness of the president), "Like a rock, only dumber."

How is his campaign going in Republican Morris County?

"We have some people who are vehemently opposed, but we do have our First Amendment rights," he said."

Matt was very good at raising money, so he stays outside the office while the people who can't raise the money on the phone either clean the office or cook group meals for LYM.

See you in 2036 LYM.

****************

Posts by XLCR4LIFE

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

11 april, in memory of Ken Kronberg!

2009-04-11T12:07:00.001+02:00

Today it is April 11. Two years ago Kenneth Kronberg committed suicide! The story behind the suicide is that Lyndon LaRouche was inducing him to commit suicide.

Please visit the memorial site of Ken Kronberg!

http://www.kennethkronberg.com/KK/

For information on the suicide, read here:
http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0711.klein.html

And now, two years after, Lyndon LaRouche is blaming Kens wife Molly for the suicide and for conspiring against LaRouche for 30 years. What a vile lie!

/T

Cult or no cult? Steven Hassan's B.I.T.E. Mind Control Model shows what LaRouches movement really is!

2009-04-10T01:59:00.004+02:00

I sat down tonight to write my thoughts about the cult-methods of Lyndon LaRouche, following the Mind Control Model of Steven Hassan... But when googling I found that http://www.laroucheplanet.info already had an excellent article with a lot of examples on this subject.

So I am posting the link here instead for you to read.

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Cult.Bite

A comment on moderation of comments

2009-04-10T00:34:00.003+02:00

I will moderate all comments from now on. I wont censor anybody that critizises me, if you think so. But I had to remove a comment by someone who called himself "Agape" (sic!) who tried to reveal some of the real names of people that post on the Factnet and who were extremely unpolite and full of rage against me.

That makes it necessary for me to start to look at the comments before they are posted.

Ex. LYM members speak out!

2009-04-09T14:38:00.003+02:00

I have opened a second twinblog of this blog today. It is a blog where I will be posting stories, articles and forumposts of different kinds, that I like.

I will focus on the stories of former members, especially former LYM members. If you look at the sidebar to the right you can find a collection of links to posts on that new blog, that is posts by former LYM-members. That list will increase very much in the coming months.

http://larouchesources.blogspot.com/

Please look at the posts that are already posted here. Stories from different ex. LYM-members during the last years.

My friend/child is a LYM member. Where can I get help?

2009-04-08T08:17:00.010+02:00

If your friend, or child or relative is a member of the LaRouchemovement and you need someone to talk to, you should contact an organization that works to help relatives of members in a cult, or that helps people to escape from cult.

Dont get fooled by the fact that the organization in some parts of the world (like in Sweden) seems to be more "liberal". It is a "light"-version of a cult in some places of the world, but still a cult.

I would recommend the following webbsites. AGPF in Germany, FRI in Sweden and Steven Hassans informationscenter Freedomofmind in the USA:

http://www.agpf.de/

http://www.fri-sverige.se/

http://www.freedomofmind.com

Factnet is a good place for information on cults, and it is a forum for discussion among ex. members too: http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/forumdisplay.php?f=1229

There is an umbrella organzation for European organizations that helps ex. members of sects. On this site you can find links to French, German, Danish and Italian sites with information about sects, and contactinformation if you whant to get in touch with them: http://www.fecris.org/

Please read the following articles and statements by parents of members in the LaRouchemovement/LYM too!

Family members fight back the cult:

http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/NEW/families_fight_back.html

Statement by family to German member of the LaRouchemovement:

http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-families.htm#one

Statement by family "Ada", mother of a member of the LaRouchemovement:

http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-families.htm#three

Statement by French parents:

http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-families.htm#four

Statement by the parents of a French LYM member:

http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-families.htm#five

Statement by Australian parents:

http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-families.htm#six

Statement by former LYM member from France:

http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/NEW/living_prison.htm

Please look at this article too about why Lyndon LaRouche and his LYM-cult wants to censor the internet. The quote below is quite revealing. It wants to censor the internet to make sure that people dont leave the cult! (From a discussion in 2007 between youth in the cult and the cult-guru Lyndon LaRouche about Facebook and Myspace and why that is "satanic".)

http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.com/2009/03/do-you-want-larouche-to-censor-internet.html

"Most of the folks who drop out, and don't come around after a decent conversation, is because of this stuff. Something has happened to these people, after they get on the web and do a search etc. They've become a thing, organized by a bigger thing."

The threedimensional model: A model to describe EAP, LYM and Lyndon LaRouche!

2009-04-07T10:02:00.015+02:00

I got the question how I would describe the movement I once was a member in!

If I should describe the organization in a few word, what would I say that it is a totalitarian and despotic political cult with a dualistic, conspiratorical worldview where everything is divided into good and evil, and it has a pseudoreligious method of work, where it is claimed that the "final days are near" and only the members can save humanity... if they only obey the leader of the cult, i.e. Lyndon LaRouche!

Thus I would describe it. But it is not enough. It wont still explain all the puzzeling facts about the movement. Such as how to reconcile its fascist and cult-like views with its non-racist methods.

I recently heard about a model that makes it easier to understand LaRouche and his movement, the so called "threedimensional model".

The threedimensional model

Many are puzzled by the movement LaRouche has created. It is not similar to anything else and all attempts to compare it to similar movements fail.

Some Swedish authors, that have written about the modern fascism, believe that all totalitarian movements can be described by looking at three different things, the so called three dimensional model. The essay by Mattias Gardell in this anthology is one example of this. (The anthology "Brunt", red. Deland and Westin, 2007! http://www.bokforlagetatlas.se/index.php?sid=2&pid=16&showtitle=291 )

(The three dimensions are described in my words, a bit simplified.)

1) They are either leftwing or rightwing extremists, or move back and forth on this scale... (The division between left and right is not absolute, because some movements, like the one LaRouche founded, can have elements of both left and right. The Strasserists were a kind of leftwing nazis. Mussolini started his political work as leftwing and were later rightwing.)

2) They are either centralized or decentralized, (I.e. they have a strong leader, and is perhaps run as a cult) or they are run very autonomously with individuals and groups working for themselves without leadership. They might have a political ideology where the worldview of the leader/leaders are absolute truth too, and where there is a demand that all members stick to that truth and no opposition is allowed, or they dont have this ideology.

3) They are either racist and perhaps for a culturally and/or religiously homogenous society, or they are for a racially, culturally and religiously pluralistic society. (Nationalists or globalists...)

Some others add a fourth dimension, I would agree on that:

4) They are pro violence or not violent.

Gardell writes this about Lyndon LaRouche and his Swedish organization, EAP in the anthology "Brunt" (page 59): "Many view LaRouche as bizarre. This threedimensional model shows that LaRouce, even if the position he has in the model is not so common, can be understood as a rightwingcentralist of a fascist kind, but with global ambitions and a pluralistic orientation and membership, i.e. multiethnical and from many religions."

("För många framstår LaRouche som bisarr. Den tredimensionella modellen visar att LaRouche, även om hans positionering är ovanlig, kan förstås som en högercentralist av fascistiskt snitt men med globala ambitioner och pluralistisk - mångetnisk, mångreligiös - orientering och medlemskår!")

There is much truth in this model and it helps to explain a phenomena like the LaRouchemovement and Lyndon LaRouche, even if I disagree somewhat with the description of LaRouche as rightwing, it is actually both leftwing and rightwing at the same time!

Lets therefore clairfy it a bit!

My version of the model

This is a description in my words, of some examples that can illustrate this model, but with a corrected view of LaRouche and with the fourth dimension added... (And I am comparing LaRouche to other groups.)

The LaRouchemovement is not left or right in the normal sense. It is very centralized, so much that it is a cult. It is nonhomogenous and pluralistic and it is non violent.

The nazis in the 30s in Germany can be describes as rightwing, very centralized, so much that it too was a cult. It was extremely homogenous and nonpluralistic and very violent.

In the same way leftists can be described. The RAF in the 70s can be described as leftwing, very centralized, so much that it too was a cult. Somewhat nonhomogenous and somewhat pluralistic and very violent.

The LEFTIST militant "green"anarchists of today (Like Animal Liberaltion Front) can be described as leftwing, very decentralized, nonhomogenous and pluralistic and selectively violent.

Conclusion

We need to be precise when describing the global movement of Lyndon LaRouche. The threedimensional model, or perhaps even a fourdimensional one, can help describing what it is.

And it helps to explain why some fascist movements, like LaRouches, can be for a multhiethnical society, with people of all races, cultures and creeds.

Lyndon LaRouche and Africa: development AND dictatorship!

2009-04-06T09:25:00.012+02:00

This is a thing I have written for all members of the LaRouche Youthmovement (LYM) and for all those that might still believe that LaRouche is democratic, or even perhaps a "Democrat"!

We who were recruited as youngsters to the movement of Lyndon LaRouche were often impressed by all the nice ideas about "saving Africa". The first thing I read, in 1988, were an article taken from a conference "Development is the name for peace", on "The development of Africa"...

Food aid for Africa. Development projects to make the deserts green. Trans-African railroads. Industries. Calling starvation a "holocaust"... Wonderful ideas, I believed! Especially for me that had read Martin Luther Kings last book where King says that one day the 20th century, when people were starving and living in poverty, would be viewed as we in the 20th century views cannibalism and slavery or the nazi holocaust. As madness!

I still share this idea of Martin Luther King. I must confess. Starvation in a world of plenty is so barbaric that I without any doubt say that it is as barbaric as cannibalism and the holocaust! INSANE!

The LaRouchian views of Africa was very much one of the reasons why I joined the organization

In the 90s and early 2000s I worked with the organization in many things that had to do with Africa. The "genocide in Rwanda", Nigeria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Congo/Zaire, Kenya, etc... In Sweden we held a lot of conferences on the subject of African development, and we did much work on Africa. We had many friends in the African exile community, and among the embassies of African countries, in Sweden, like the Zimbabwian embassy.

It is still like this. The organization gains much credit from its work with African issues...

The LYM in Sweden and globally are involved in much work that has to do with Africa. One recent speech by one of them about nuclear power in Africa, Portia Strid, is gaining much credibility all over the globe: http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2009/04/portia-strids-vision-for-african.html .

Double standards

But when looking at my years in the organization in 2003, just before I left the organization, I started to see a lot of really scary stuff.

I began to ask myself... "Yes, the organization was for the development of Africa. Yes, it was opposing racism in every way... But... What about freedom and democracy? And who are the friends of the organization in Africa! Who would construct all these nice things?"

The truth is that LaRouche is for development and dictatorship!

Mugabe - Zimbabwe

The dictator Robert Mugabe is one of the people LaRouche hope would "develop Africa".!

In the early 1990s Mugabe was no friend of Lyndon LaRouches. It was about this time that the EIR published a book on Tiny Rowland, that was financed by some of Tinys enemies in London. How much money that came from Mohamed 'Al' Fayed and the "friends" of fayed, and was "invested" in this book, I dont know. Perhaps all, perhaps only a part of the cost.

Those who does not know who Tiny is can read Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Rowland

Let me just say that all Afriocans I have met who has known him has HATED him. Perhaps not without reason, his Lonhro company were not exactly known for its "humanistic" methods...

In this book Mugabe in Zimbabwe is described as one of the persons that Tiny, on behalf of Brittish intelligence and the ever omnipresent "oligarchs" has funded and created. We used this example in the 90s. We used to organize Africans by pointing out how Tiny financed the Rhodhesian racists, and both rebel groups that were opposing the racists, among them Mugabe.

But this was at the time when all liberals and democrats globally LOVED Mugabe. Mugabe and Zimbabwe was loved by almost all internationally (exept Lyndon LaRouche and his movement) until he in the end of the 90s turned against the white farmers (and IMF) then the global media and all global "experts" on democracy and liberalism suddenly turned around and decladed that they always had seen Mugabe as a vile dictator! (sic! Double standards is certainly no LaRouchian method only!)

LaRouche and the ICLC did a similar turn and all of a sudden everything that had been written about Zimbabwe earlier was forgotten and Mugabe was described as a "hero" by the movement. And the cooperation between the Zimbabwian dictator and the LaRouchies started. It started when Uwe and Dean (I think it was them) visited Zimbabwe around 2001 - 2002.

It was basicly like this. Mugabe okayed the cooperation with LaRouche in his egoistic propagandistic efforts. (No leader, not even Mugabe, can survive without friends abroad.)

When all people were worried about the lack of democracy in Zimbabwe and the way Mugabe treated his opponent, Tsvangirai, LaRouche instead called Tsvangirai a "british agent and agent of soros". ( http://www.talkzimbabwe.com/news/117/ARTICLE/3847/2008-12-03.html , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chUpfOYZI5A ) When the world was horrified with food disaster in Zimbabwe, due to the expulsion of the farmers, the LaRouchies let the zimbawian embassador in Washington speak at their conferences as some kind of "hero": "Tsvangirai is steered and paid for by the British. This is no secret, Mapuranga said...

To the youngsters in the LaRouchemovement I say today: I still think much was wrong with the system before in Zimbabwe, the system you call the time when the "white farmers" ran everything. Cash-crops like flowers and cotton cannot be eaten. To grow cash-crop on the irrigated soil and food on the irrigated soil created a disaster in 1993 when there was a drought. BUT. ..

1) What would happen if we in Sweden kicked out all our educated farmers and replaced them with people that know less about farming? It would be a disaster. In a similar way it was disaster when this was done in Zimbabwe. THIS IS ABC in the science of agriculture!!! That Mugabe did not want to bring in food from countries above did not help the poor in the country either. Thus poverty and famine spread! And this was the fault of MUGABE, the ally of LaRouche!

2) That Mugabe is a dictator that trows people in jail just because they are opposing him should be looked at. (Isnt this by the way a continuation of the colonial practises of the Brits, Rhodesians and of Tiny, that once upon a time the movement claimed funded and created Mugabe?) Ask yourself why this helps Africans. Is this the right thing to do? Why has LaRouche not opposed the undemocratic methods of Mugabe? Is it the right thing to do to beat opponents that is funded by people like Soros and to throw them in jail without trial? WOULD LAROUCHE DO THE SAME IF HE GOT POWER? (Read the proposal for a Canadian constitution and ask yourself that: http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.com/2009/03/canadian-constitution-blueprint-for.html )

3) Why the hell is Larry Freeman upheld as the "Africa expert" in the USA? If anyone would be a worse dictator than Mugabe, it is Larry! And hey, you Swedes! Ask Stephen Brawer what he knows about Larry since the time he was in the USA. Let him tell you about the methods of Larry and why Stephen left the USA. Ask some of the older members what the youngsters we sent to USA experienced in the 1990 when in Baltimore. Anyone that has seen one of the "shouting sessions" of Larry; with Larry yelling, bullying and insulting organizers!

And dont be fooled by the ordinary LaRouchian trick, to say that "if only" the global attacks against Zimbabwe is stopped it will be more democratic. It wont! It is in a crisis that one sees the true nature of a political leader! What Mugabe is doing, is what he is like!

Sudan - Bashir!

Another "friend" of LaRouche is the dictator in Sudan: Bashir! LaRouche is making a big thing about him nowadays. he should not be brought to the International Court, he says:

"March 20, 2009 (LPAC) -- In discussions yesterday, Lyndon LaRouche emphasized that Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir should not be brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC), a court created by the drug pusher George Soros, and his British Commonwealth ally Lord Mark Malloch Brown. LaRouche pointed to those responsible for the creation of the ICC, a fake court, and asked: "Are you going to allow the head of a nation, Bashir, to be taken before the court of a drug pusher? Do you see the criminality of that?" LaRouche warned any country that goes along with such a decision: "you will be the next to go, by tolerating it.""

LaRouche has supported Sudan ever since the sudanese government in the 80s okayed the cooperation with LaRouche.

Once again one have to ask oneself if it really is necessary to have disctatoship and to trow people in jail without trial, just because you believe you are a country under attack?

Or could it be that LaRouche thinks that the lack of democracy in Sudan is a positivie thing? I know some of you might have problems believing it is so, but look at what LaRouche himself said: in 2001 when he visited Sudan: http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2001/2806_sudan_concluding.html

"In these days, it is fashionable to exaggerate the importance of democracy. Because the idea of democracy, as it is taught by international institutions, which use it as a way of manipulating governments, and manipulating people, is the idea of democracy that comes from where? In European civilization this usage comes directly from the Roman Empire.

Now, how did the Roman Empire control its people? It controlled its people through vox populi, popular opinion. It controlled its people through bread and circuses, by shaping popular opinion. It shaped its opinions by putting the people as spectators to watch Romans kill other Romans as gladiators, and the passions were involved with these kinds of violent spectator sports. And by these mechanisms, the Roman rulers manipulated the people in the name of democracy, into a mob of popular opinion.

Now, we see a lot of that in politics in various forms. The question is, not whether a government is democratic or not. The question is, whether the government is fit to exist or not. That's the issue; whether it's democratically chosen or not is not the question. Is it fit to exist? Are people capable of selecting government which is fit to exist?"

LaRouche talks about saving the democracy one moment, the other he attacks it like in the above mentioned speech in Sudan.

In reality LaRouche would do as he said in his proposal for a CANADIAN CONSTITUTION in 1981. He would make sure that his opponents are not even allowed to vote, and that they have no right to free speech! ( http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.com/2009/03/canadian-constitution-blueprint-for.html )

Nigeria - the freakshow

Around 1997 to 1998 the Nigerian government had a "dialogue" with LaRouche. This was a freakshow! It was at the time when General Abacha ran the country. I can still remember a magazine that was published in Nigeria with a long article about LaRouche. The magazine a magazine of a typical totalitarian regime. There was a photo of the general on basicly every page, and the same photo (!) on almost all pages. Dictators like to see their picture (and their statues) on all pages, you know! And the name of this dictator was on every page, the "great leader Abacha" was even quoted by the people writing about how "soap operas" and cooking recipies in the magazine!...

I remember that this created a bit of a crisis for me, because I looked at some copies of New Federalist and the EIR and... (big surprise!) LYNDON LAROUCHES PICTURE WAS EVERYWHERE AND HIS NAME MENTIONED IN EVERY ARTICLE!

This is how an article in the New federalist described a visit by Helga to Nigeria in 1997: http://american_almanac.tripod.com/helganig.htm

"Mrs. Helga Zepp LaRouche, representing EIR, delivered a presentation on ``The Success of the Chinese Economic Reform and Its Significance for Nigeria: Africa's Secret Weapon for Peace!'' to the Fourth Nigerian Economic Summit on Nov. 19, in the capital, Abuja. Mrs. LaRouche was introduced immediately following the formal seating of Nigeria's Head of State, Gen. Sani Abacha. The speaker following her was Prof. Paul Collier, the director of Oxford University's Center for the Study of African Economics, who departed from his text, to warn the gathering that ``they should be very careful about those who peddle prosperity.'' He went on to present his view of the world's ``model'' economies for the developing world: Indonesia, and Britain's puppet regime of Uganda.

Sani Abacha spoke next, emphasizing that Nigeria was making progress in her drive for stability."

ANC -South Africa

When I joined the movement, in 1988 to 1990, ANC was agents of both the British and the communists in Soviet Union.

Officially the South African Aparthaid regime was supported by the movement because its industries were needed in the future "industrialization of Africa", that we talked much about. But inofficially the only reason was that the South African racists had initiated a cooperation with Lyndon LaRouche.

We did not ask ourselves then, the question why LaRouche did not oppose the racism and TOTALITARIAN method of the Soith African aparthaid regime, but you should do so! We critizised the ANC for murdering people, why did we not critizise the aparthaid regime when they did the same? Ask LaRouche why!

http://www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-south-africa5.pdf

http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-south-africa3.pdf

http://lyndonlarouche.org/ourtown3.htm#southafrica

http://lyndonlarouche.org/ourtown3.htm#conceals

Rwanda and Uganda

In 1997 the Rwandan crisis and holocaust started.

The LaRouchies immediately blamed the tutsies and the Ugandan regime (Museveni) for the genocide, despite the fact that it was the tutsies that mainly was murdered (one million killed). And yes, tutsies were certainly no angles and hutus were murdered too, and yes, there were large groups of tutsies that were preparing an invasion of Rwanda in Uganda, and that were funded by Museveni... But...

Why has the organization never once admitted that actually one million tutsies were killed by the hutu regime?

And, once again... Is it necessary to hide part of a truth, parts of a genocide, in order to work politically? Why was it not possible to show the bad things both sides did?

Or were only parts of the truth told, just because the LaRouchies did not want to insult their new allies, the former rulers of Rwanda, the hutus?

The organization published this report in 1997:

"Never Again! London's Genocide Against Africans. . An EIR Special Report. June, 1997Part I: London's Gameplan Leads to Nazi Genocide in Central Africa -- Introduction; London's Coordinated Military Fronts in East Africa 1990-1997, The Death Count So Far; The Chain Reactions of Catastrophe; From Their Own Evil Mouths -- British Press Outlets Advertize Plans to Recolonize Africa; The LaRouche Movement Led The Fight To Stop African Genocide. Part 2: Genocide in Africa -- Some of the Truth Comes Out -- A Holocaust is reported in the World's Press; Documentation of the Holocaust - - Reports From Around the World. Part 3: London's Raw Materials Cartel Runs the Africa Genocide -- How the British Raw Materials Cartel Put Kabila Into Power. Part 4: Who Sabotaged the Multilateral Aid Force? Why There was No Rescue Mission for Rwandan Refugees in 1996. Part 5: Nyerere's 'Kindergarten': Dar Es Salaam University. The Training of the KKK - Kabila, Kagame, and Kabuta Museveni; Bankers Radicals Protect Bush, Abet African Genocide, 'Revolution 101' at Dar Es Salaam; Museveni Embraces Fanon's Doctrine of Violence; 'Black Handlers' Jean-Paul Sartre and Jean Genet -- Nostalgia For the Mud; Sartre's Ideas on Violence; Fanon's Economic False Consciousness"

Please also read this: http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/1997/lhl_ed_03-07-97.html

http://old.mndaily.com/articles/1997/06/18/3799

Ok. Museveni might not be an angle either. But LaRouche organizers has visited Uganda privately without being thrown in jail. Would it have been possible for a a Museveni sympathizer, one that perhaps also likes george Soros, to visit a country run by a LaRouchian president? I dont think so!

CONCLUSION :

Why those fighting for freedom needs to uphold the importance of democracy and freedom of speech!

There are more examples of this double standard!

If you are a young sympathizer of LaRouche, i would recommend you to look in an old archive with copies of the EIR, NEUE SOLIDARITÄT and NEW federalist/New Solidarity. This small list of LaRouches friends in Africa can be expanded!

And dont forget: ONE KNOWS THE TRUE NATURE OF A PERSON, OR AN ORGANIZATION, BY LOOKING AT THE FRIEND THAT PERSON OR ORGANIZATION, CHOOSES TO SURROUND HIMSELF OR HERSELF WITH!

MAKE AN EXPERIMENT. Ask LaRouche why he does not critizise the lack of democracy in Zimbabwe and Sudan. I already know the answer. LaRouche would say that you have been fooled by a slander campaign run by Soros. If you are really "lucky" you would here LaRouche explain the philosophical background to "british democracy" and why it has been used to destablize nations. You would not hear anythin g negative about the LACK of democracy, but a lot of bad things told about democracy as such.

NOW MAKE ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Ask LaRouche what would have happened if the Brittish in 1775 to 1776 had treated the American revolutionaries like Bejamin Franklin and Thomas jefferson and the Adams brothers, like Mugabe treats his opponents...

Or perhaps that was what the Brittish did? Oh, and perhaps that is WHY such a revoloytion was made?!

Lyndon LaRouche has always critizised the early American founding fathers and their allies for being to soft on the allies of Great Britain (the former Colonial masters) after the war of independence was won (Aaron Burr and co...). But perhaps it was so that the founding fathers knew that democracy was so important that they let the sympathizers of the former colonial regime, those that were pro-British, talk freely! Perhaps they knew that the opposite to democracy is dictatorship? Perhaps they knew that their ideals, and USA, would die if democracy was not allowed?

Read the founding fathers for yourself, the Federalist papers is good reading, I enjoyed reading it some years ago, while I was a member.

But I asked myself the question: WHAT WOULD LYNDON LAROUCHE HAVE DONE IF HE HAD BEEN A PRESIDENT AFTER THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE? Would he have imprisoned and stopped all opponents, inluding those that likes Britain, or not? And what would he have done if Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and Samuel Adams would have rised up to say that even the opponents of the revolution have the right to speak?

Would he have thrown Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Samuel Adams in jail too?

Look at who the friends of LaRouche is in Africa. Look at what LaRouche says about democracy and look at the proposal he made for a Canadian Constitution.Look to at the way he runs the organization... ARE OPPONENTS TO LAROUCHE ENCOURAGED OR BANNED AND VILIFIED INSIDE THE ORGANIZATION?

Then look at the US constitution and compare LaRouche to the "American system" and the founding fathers and ask yourself why Lyndon H. LaRouche hates democracy and freedom of speech!

A declaration of independence from Lyndon LaRouche!

2009-04-03T12:12:00.003+02:00

In 1980 to 1981 hundreds of members in ICLC left the organization and said NO to Lyndon LaRouche. These documents show what those that left the LaRouche-cult was thinking. Perhaps they had their legitimate reasons for doing so?! (While in the organization I always heard a lot of scare stories about the resignations around 1980. It was said that these people wanted to steal money from others and get rich!

http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-detroit.pdf

http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-computron-all.htm

http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showpost.php?p=366851&postcount=1272

http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-computron-split.PDF

There are documents on the resignation of the EEC, the european leadership, in 2006 at this website: http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.MiscLaRouche

Lyndon LaRouche and antisemitism, why I prefer not to call him antisemite!

2009-04-03T09:44:00.013+02:00

It is important to be careful when using words, because people have a preconception when about what a word means.

If that preconception does not really fit with what others say, it might create some confusion! And that confusion is one which can backfire...

Let me just start by saying that I can understand the use of the word antisemitic when describing Lyndon LaRouche! Just look at the picture accompanying this text!

The only difference is that I mean that if one says that he is an antisemite one have to add some things, in order to make it correct. First one have to ask if the organization also is that. If Lyn is an antisemite, then the organization and its members is so too, I would say. Quite obvious since the organization IS LYN!

Then one has to add that it is not a normal kind of antisemitism. It is one that is antisemitic but still "friendly" to jews. Jews are more than welcome in this organization. There are jews as leaders. It speaks well about parts of the jewish heritage and Israel. And antisemites that are open with their antisemitism is not welcome in this organization. (I have seen Lyn and Helga openly ridicule and critizise parliamentarians (!) that were open antisemites in the classical form (race/blood=evil). It is an antisemitism that would use the protocols to get more jews to join the organization!!!

The problem

LaRouche has been compared to Father Coughlin and David Duke on the Factnet. (Well, I actually read quite a lot about Father Coughlin in 2003 when I was on the intelligence call helping out with intelligence on the thing the organization calls "synarchism". One thing that was done was to look at American antisemitism in, and around, Catholic circles. Several articles was written attacking this antisemitism.) There is a big difference. Father Coughlin did not want to recruit jews or welcome jews in his organization (to my knowledge at least). He had not leading jews in his organization and to my knowledge he did not uphold something jewish as a model for how people should live or think! Neither do Duke.

I am not saying this to defend LaRouche. When I sat down and thought about my time in the organization,before I started to post on the Factnet and before I decided to write on the blog, I decided that it is much better not to call him antisemite, and instead focus on the common features between his attacks on jews and other cultures

Why? I will tell you!

The problem is that most critics that calls Lyn an antisemite do not add an explaination, as I did. So when a jew (like Stephen Brawer in Stockholm or Phil Rubinstein perhaps) says "I am a jew and a friend of Lyn" it has an explosive effect upon people, especially youth that are CRITICAL to media and such. When the same people (youngsters!) see that the organization talks about Moses Mendelsohn and other parts of jewish culture, speaks well about Israel (not only says negative things!) and that there are dozens of jews in the leadership, and hears people in the organization say that antisemitism is wrong, then, off course, they wont listen to the critics anymore. It does not matter how many correct quotes Dennis King and others will present with LaRouches insane rantings about jews, or how often they read about Liberty Lobby and LaRouche, they will still mistrust the opponents and call their writings a lie!

The problem is that things like this makes it easy for the organization to point at other things too, as what people say that the organization is fascist or a cult. They would say. "Look at what they said about us being nazi/KKK/antisemites/racist, you KNOW that that was a lie, now what do you think it is when they say we are a cult?" The allegation that LaRouche is nazi and racist is even more dangerous. There are so many coloured people in the organization and around Lyn, and so much work being done to "save Africa", that this becomes ridiculous. Do you follow me?

My experience as an organizer

This is the experience I have as a former member. I used to speak to LYM members when I was in the org about how they were recruited, and was almost a Lym (a bit too old, though, being born 1970!). I spoke often to members that had joined BEFORE the LYM-period and the pattern was the same!

But it was also my experience as an "organizer". This is what I found was a good way to recruit people. I have actually recruited, or helped to recruit, quite a number of youngsters to the organization by simply using what the critics said and letting them compare it to what they could see!

I often let them read articles written by Dennis King and Swedish critics. I showed them some articles from when Amelia was in Lund 2001, for example, when some stupid local journalists tried to scare people from coming by saying that the organization is rightwing extremist, racist and has conections to the KKK! So stupid, so stupid! We recruited new members and contacts by the simple fact that people would ask themselves, "what the heck, this cant be true!"

Jews are viewed POSITIVELY

It is not strange that the organization welcomed a jew like Jeremiah Duggan to the conference in 2003. There are other JEWISH LYM members, you know! As well as there are muslim, atheist and catholic once, and from every culture and with all colours of skin! ALL ARE WELCOME, MORE THAN WELCOME, in the organization... As long as they adjust their culture or creed or worldview to be LaRouchians!

Were the jews welcomed or not in the 70s when you older ex-members joined? Off course they were. The same with catholics! The Catholics were welcome too! (I know that jokes about the holocaust and jokes about catholics has been circulating. I know that it has not been seen as a "good" thing to visit a church or a synagogue too much, etc... Yes! But they were still welcome. That LaRouche did not want the catholic, for example, to be too active in his or her church has got more to do with the fact that the organization is a cult!)

I would say, compare the what Lyndon treated catholics and jews in the 70s. The early writings on the sexual impotence of PSP and beoynd psychoanalysis are actually far more critical to catholic culture than jewish culture! Right?! Lyn was a catholic-basher those days. It can clearly be seen in Dope Inc, where Lyn SPEAKS about the protocols of Sion, but where he QUOTES the so called "extrem Jesuit Oath/Oath of Knights of Colombus".

But Catholics were welcome still, right? As well as jews were! It was just that LaRouche used all his manipulative skill, and all his vile methods of slanders and lies, to make the catholic AND JEWISH (and atheist, and pagan, and protestant, and american, and communist, and swedish, and german, and french, and latino, and jazzloving... etc-) member QUESTION EVERY PART OF THEIR CULTURE and replace it with LaRouches own view of it!

The use of the protocols and the attacks on LARGE PARTS jewish culture (Sionism is not judaism, was actually written by a jew, by the way!), had not only the purpose of winning the apporoval of Willis Carto and the Liberty Lobby, LaRouches friends at the time. It had an ordinary, more prosaic purpose, THAT OF MAKING THE MEMBERS OF THE CULT MORE DEPENDENT OF CULT GURU: LAROUCHE!

That is why the organizers that TRIED TO RECRIUT DUGGAN to the organization (to become one more of the jewish LYM-members), used both attacks on jews, like Rabin etc, and the examples of "positive" jewish culture, like Moses Mendelsohn!

Dont forget that the movement is a cult!

Duggan

Jeremiah Duggan was welcomed to the conference in 2003, just as every other jew that has participated (and I have met A LOT OF THEM!!!!!) has been welcomed!

Lets be blunt about it. The problem with the Duggan-campaign right now is that two extremes meet.

On one hand the people that says that Duggan must have been murdered by the vile antisemitic, almost nazi, cult because he was a jew, because antisemites dont like jews! And since the local German police does not believe it was a murder and have witnesses that saw Duggan run out in the traffic being HIT by the traffic, then the police must be a bunch of liars that in the german "nazi tradition" does not want to investigate this ritual murder of this jew!

On the other hand the TOTALITARIAN CULT that say that Duggan had "problems" but that fails/chooses not to see that the METHODS of the cult may have led to a psychological breakdown for Duggan, so that he became confused, afraid or even decided to commit suicide! In the case of Lyndon LaRouche I believe that he knows very well that the methods of "organizing" new recruits (Ego-stripping as you older ex. members would say) might lead to disasterours results, but he wishes to cover it up!

One might ask if the extreme position of the critics, and the accusations against German police, has made the police more or less willing to investigate the LaRouchecult? My guess is that it has not exactly encouraged them to investigate it!

In the view of Lyndon LaRouche, there are no races or cultures or differences between creeds... There is a "unity in the manifold", a "one in the many", a "super-asshole", a "manifold", a "transfinite", that unites it all, and that is the totalitarian CULT-GURU himself: Lyndon LaRouche! All are welcome, jews and atheists as well as Martians and extraterrestials :o) as long as all lick the fat ass of the guru!

And the lack of that understandning among some of the organizers of the Duggan event, is the wekness of the plead to investigate the death of Duggan! I just hope that some German authorities can see that there is a need to investigate it, even though!

And to all I would say, as an ex. organizer and as a person that has been around LYM. PLEASE DONT JUST CALL LAROUCHE AN ANTISEMITE WITHOUT WRITING THE EXPLAINATION I DID BEFORE!!! IF YOU DONT WANT TO EXPLAIN WHY LAROUCHE WELCOMES JEWS AND IS AN ANTISEMITE AT THE SAME TIME; THEN STOP USING THE WORD ANTISEMITE!!!

Some say that an evidence that LaRouche is antisemite is that he says that only a minority of the jews are "good" jews, the rest are either evil, or fooled.

I would say that the 0,1% OF ANY CULTURE, CREED and so called race, that is LaRouchians or behave as LaRouche wants them to, are the only true representatives of that culture, creed or race as LaRouche views it!

Only a small, small faction or the jews, swedes, americans, germans, catholics, atheistst, canadians, australians, etc, make up the faction of humanistic Neo-platonic Jews, Swedes, Americans, Germans, Catholics, Atheists, Canadians, Australians, etc, that LaRouche extolls and approves! And they have to agree with Lyndon!!!

That is the way a cult-leader runs the show!

And admittedly, some cultures are attacked more often than others. Jews, Russians and English has been attacked more than others. And perhaps the french!

So... To repeat! If it is antisemitism to say that only 0,1% of the jews are "good", then he is anti- EVERYTHING!!!!! And that is my point! As any clever, brilliant and EVIL cultleader would do he declares ALL exept the "saved once" to be the hostages and dupes of "hedonism", "liberalism" and "Satan"! And all can be saved, as long as that person "surrenders to the Messiah and adopts the creed (oh, excuse me, not creed, but METHOD) of that Messiah!

/T

Lyndon LaRouche and Satan, an intimate relationship!

2009-04-02T11:53:00.012+02:00

Lyndon LaRouche has always used Satan in his political rethoric.

LaRouche claims that his movement is not religious. But every time he has a need to strengthen his control of the organization, his good old "friend", Satan, is brought forward as the argument why LaRouche is right and just about everyone else on this planet is wrong.

Lets take a look at the period between 1988 and 1992 and compare it to the campaigns against "The Children of Satan", and "Devil in your laptop", from after 2003...

Why all my enemies will die!

The first time I came in contact with Larouchian rethoric about Satan was in 1989. Lyndon LaRouche had finally ended up in prison for fraud and economical scams. To make the organization survive LaRouche started to talk more and more about religion. Already in 1988 the organization published the pamphlet "The third trial of Socrates", where the trial against LaRouche is said to be as the trials against Socrates and Jesus.

In 1989 "Why all my enemies will die", was published.

In it I could read.

"Given the deepening general crisis of civilization as a

whole, the spread of Satanism and its acts, threatens now to

become the extra factor unleashing virtually uncontrollable evils

Of great force of destruction. Given a widspread core of pres-

ently organized, devout Satanists, also given the deepening

mood of cultural pessimism now being being fed by worsening

western appeasement of Moscow, and given the terrible financial

crisis on the verge of eruption, we face a monstrous social

crisis within society, a crisis tending to bring out either the

best or the very worst potentialities within the population.

The presence of a powerful catalytic force of organized Satan-

ism, under these conditions, could unleash from within our

nations a beast which becomes uncontrollable."

After writing about the "criminal mind" of satanists, and different satanic organization, the article ended with a prediction that the "harmageddon" might be near:

"That said, no one should be altogether surprised is some-

thing looking very much like "the last days" were to appear very

soon. Whether that is the case, or not, should make no dif-

ference to us; we should act in the same manner, whatever the

outcome of this worsening crisis might prove to be. In short,

do not be like the dumb Quaker this writer once was, who blames

God for the state of mankind; the Creator holds each of us re-

sponsible for the condition of mankind, to the extent of the

potential means of each of us to do something to remedy the

present state of affairs. "

Immediately after LaRouche wrote this, in early 1989, the whole movement internationally initated different campaigns against satanism. There were articles, campaigns and research about satanic child abuse (The cooperation with, Dianne Core, and in the USA the Frankling Cover up with the pedophile Jim Bevel as LaRouches campaign leader!). There were attacks on known satanists, etc. I later heard that for a year basicly the whole american oranization focused on recruiting christian fundamentalists.

Why? It was easy to get money from these fundamentalist supporters: it was just to say that the organization was fighting Staan!

Satanic Rock music

The part of the article that had the largest influence upon my life was the part that said that rock music was satanic:

"Since the launching of the Beatles as an international

project, via TV's , in 1963, "rock" has been

the most influential recruiter to Satanism. Rock was created,

and is still coordinated by Crowley's followers and by the OTO

network, in cooperation with WICCA. It is, not so incident-

ally, also the Satanist's biggest money-maker, and believed to

provide the chief logistical support for deployments and other

activities of the OTO-WICCA efforts world-wide."

In 1989 campaigns to stop concerts with heavy metal stars like Iron Maiden, Ozzy Osbourne, etc, was started. The swedish organization did the same.

So we chased satanists everywhere...

But seen from a distance, if ever someone was "satanic", and evil, in this campaign, it was the organization, and all its fundamentalist allies. I remember when we demonstrated in Karlskoga in 1990 against Iron maiden (I think it was them!) And the christian fundamentalists that we cooperated with walked around pointing at people, saying: "I can see satan in her", "I can see satan in him"...

This campaign was followed by others. I remember the centerfolds in New Federalist with attcks on TV. Disney and the newsmedia was now the new satanics to be targeted...

After a while the organization calmed down its references to Satan. Perhaps because it made many of the organizers join churches, and that was not really the intent of LaRouche. LaRouche wanted to strengthen the organization, not make them join churches! Some occacional attacks on computer games were initiated and as usual LaRouche used Satan in his namecalling. One day Kissinger was compared to Satan, the other day Tony Blair and the third day Newt Gingrish...

Children of Satan

Around 1999- 2000, it started all over again, this time the computer games were in the center for the campaigns: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/new_viol/ctte_vs_newviolence.html

One part of the satanic threat was Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/new_viol/lar_harrypotter_1201.html :

"This past week, Germany's tabloid Bildzeitung printed some actual news. It reported a Vatican official's warning, that the British cult of "Harry Potter" is a specifically Satanic form of contemporary occultism. The reported argument to that effect stands on its own feet; to be specific, it identifies the current cult of "Harry Potter" devotees as in the same general class of pro-Satanic cults as the "Pokémon" cult...

The earlier "Lord of the Rings," and the current mass-mania of "Pokémon," "Harry Potter," and mass-murder by adolescents against fellow-students, are each and all merely typical of the impact of cults fostered by aid of the rise of "family values" cults. Such are the explicit claims made by the promoters of the "Harry Potter" cult today..."

In 2003 a new dimension was added to the madness, when the organization was building the new youth movement, LYM. This time it was the so called "synarchists", like Dick Cheney, that was accused of being satanic.

The reason why LaRouche used this metaphor again is, I believe, that he saw this as a possibility to strengthen the ties between himself and the youth that were recruited to the LYM, LaRouches Youthmovement.

As a part of the recruitment of youth, the school system was declared to be a result of a conspiracy to destroy the minds of people. (A cult always needs to replace outher authorities with the internal one, i.e. the cult leader. Thus the education of the youth was attacked!) The young LaRouchians, LYM, are the once that can reverse this trend and make sure that civilization is not annihilated, due to that conspiracy.

A conspiracy by satanic brains were behind it all, once again Beatles is mentioned as an example of this satanic conspiracy: "The present dark age in education", http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2005/3244darkage_in_educ.html

"Remember the late 1960s, and "The Dawning of the Age of Aquarius"? That was the battle-cry of the frankly satanic Friedrich Nietzsche, the professed prophet of the Anti-Christ. Remember the pestilence of the "Beatles," which left few tender minds, or chastities, intact in the wake of their passing.That was the call for the destruction of civilization at that time, the destruction which was then, in turn, actually carried out by the shock-troops of the 68ers against the Americas and the Europe of the 1970s, up to the present day."

We need new leaders that can take us out of this satanic crisis, LaRouche writes, i.e. LYM, and he continues:

"The need to develop a new generation of leaders of such qualities from among the ranks of young adults today, is demonstrated by recognition of the fact that the susceptibility of the nations of the Americas and what was recently called "Western Europe," has been the increasing tendency for the spread of both intellectual and moral mediocrity in and outside of government since the later half of the 1960s. Even the leading figure of exceptional talent, is dragged down by the sea of both intellectual and moral mediocrity in which he or she swims...

The culminating cultural effect of that long span of the slide into sophistry-driven decadence of leadership and its constituencies, has been the post-1989 "End of History" mass-psychosis. That is to emphasize the loss of a sense of history among the dominant layers of influence shaping the leading and popular culture today. This shows up as the potential fatal ignorance of actual history in leading circles of power; the correlated breakdown of the intelligence agencies of leading governments; the lack of a sense of an actual future as the dynamics of leading and popular institutions are gripped by ever shorter concentration-spans; and, the correlated loss of rational comprehension of actual processes of cause and effect.

It is relevant to that general picture of the slide into decadence, that there is more than some little evidence, that Satan fears those who do as I do. He whispers to the person he has selected as his next dupe, pointing the accusing finger against me: "He is trying to change you!"

To that, the credulous dupe, looking Satan in the eye, asks, credulously: "Is that what he is doing?"

Satan nods a knowing nod.

The dupe's eyes widen. Anger seeps into his facial expression. "Then, he is really a very bad guy!" the dupe exclaims.

"Yes, he is a very bad guy," Satan affirms, indulgently, as he touches the dupe's sleeve lightly with his own little finger; "perhaps somebody should do something about him." The dupe's expression darkens. "Really?"

To do what must be done at the risk of that Satan's—and the Venetian financier oligarch's—displeasure, is to be a true teacher, a true leader. That such leaders might arise from the ranks of today's young adult youth, is my intention for the impact of the LYM upon our imperilled civilization of today."

The devil in the laptop

Off course, a campaign against Satan cant be run without a real target... Something needs to be attacked which forces the youngsters to choose between the worldview of LaRouche, and the worldview of "the outer world"...

LaRouche chosed to attack computer games, once more, as well as Facebook and Myspace:

The campaign to ban Facebook and MySpace was initiated around 2007 with the pamphlet "is the devil in your laptop". (http://www.larouchepac.com/node/5041 )

This pamphlet is very open about its political aim to censor the internet, as can be seen here:

"There is a mass-based fascist movement on college campuses, today," LaRouche said, identifying it as presently the greatest threat to the survival of our nation. This threat, he said, has three faces:

"*MySpace, directed by Rupert Murdoch

*Facebook, directed by Bill Gates

*Computer games, particularly the homicidal maniac versions."

If you allow an entire youth generation to be destroyed by these things, LaRouche said, there will be no future for the United States.

"Therefore, these three things, presently dominating our culture, must each be destroyed, just as a contagious killer virus or bacteriological disease must be properly diagnosed, and cured. This disease, of course, is not a biological one, per se, but a mental and cultural disease. Our diagnosis, and a pathway towards a cure, is what follows.

And, although the contents of this pamphlet will be immediately painful to the minds of those readers, who might be intricately involved in "all the rave" about MySpace, Facebook, and computer games, the joy of being freed from mental slavery, thus engaging in solving our present world's dangerous problems, will, in the longer term, greatly outweigh the short-term pain, of tearing yourself from a beloved, but deadly, folly."

Lyndon LaRouche has repeatedly compared the youth that are active on MySpace or Facebook with Hitler youth members, satanists, hedonists, people without a soul, people that are like the animals on a zoo!

In an interview where LaRouche calls Obama a lizzard, a babbler, a puppet, no good, not reasonable, a clown, from the summer of 2008, he also attacks the Facebook and My Space:

"MySpace and Facebook typify that problem. You have something like mindless zombies coming out of the Black Lagoon, and that's the phenomenon. What you have is a break from relevance. The characteristic of MySpace and Facebook is what? You're not in the real universe. And this goes together with the killer games, which are less in the press nowadays, but they're still the same phenomenon out there. The killer computer games. People who are divorced from any connection with reality, who don't see the social process in which they're involved as a social process, as having any meaning, and they act like goons, or Black Lagoon types, coming out of the swamps."

This talk about satan has no other purpose than to make the members of the LaRouche-cult feel that politics is about "we versus the evil forces that wants to enslave mankind"...

I can remember how I felt the same. We were fighting for the survival of mankind against a cruel and hostile world. The rest of the people did not understand that there were evil, satanic, forces (oligarchs) that wanted to enslave people and we (i.e. the movement) had to take responsibility and save the planet. WHETHER THE REST OF THE PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET WANTED TO BE SAVED BY US OR NOT, WAS OF NO IMPORTANCE, they were just "blocking" and did not understand what was good for them! LaRouche was an enormous genius, a kind of Messiah, that had started this movement to make people think again, to be able to save the world.

It was we against the rest of the world, and the rest were controlled by the "forces" out there. There minds were SATANIC, it was the oligarchs!

This kind of dualist, manichean, thinking is typical for every cult! And as with every cult: The only satan there is to fear, is the satan that runs the cult!

I got this comment by mail some minutes ago by a reader:

"One other point on the Christian fundamentalist stuff. It is important always to keep in mind that LaRouche's dualistic outlook really goes back to his childhood in a fundamentalist religious world of his parents. In case you haven't read it, take a look at this chapter: http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/downloads/FIGHTING_QUAKERS.pdf "

LYM, what critics have to say about Lyndon LaRouche and his youthmovement, LYM.

2009-04-02T10:50:00.005+02:00

"The LaRouche movement is kind of a psychotic fantasy disguised as a political organization. And, so the positions that they take publicly are always, in a way, kind of a distraction from the basic idea which is that LaRouche is the greatest genius of the present times and is actually a secret power behind the scenes politically...

LaRouche is nothing if not an ambitious thinker. He has a sense that he has a philosophy that pretty much explains everything that’s happening in human history. And, there is a good side and a bad side to this. The good side consists of followers of Plato who are city builders and are pro-technology, and the bad guys are the (unintelligible) who, according to LaRouche’s somewhat peculiar reading of these things, want everyone basically to live in a kind of an animalistic, feudal state with only a few kind of aristocrats lording over the world...

Certain groups are always predicting the end of the world and, you know, the return of Jesus or whatever is coming next week. The LaRouche movement, from its inception, which is about 40 years ago, has predicted a gigantic, global, apocalyptic economic collapse, which in fact, is underway right this minute. And it’s been underway right this minute for 40 years running now. So, if you are serious, and you really want to save mankind and to save mankind you really have to get LaRouche to power, then what are you doing in school? You’re being selfish. If you’re going in to pursue a career, that’s selfish. And, you know, do you really want to save humanity? Do you want to save mankind? Do you want to create an economic system which is just and which allows people in the third world to have advanced technology or are you only out for yourself? These are questions that all of us are asking ourselves in one form or another, many of us anyway, at an early age. And we come up with the best solutions that we can but the LaRouche organization has the, I don’t want to say virtue or benefit, but it certainly gives you a package. And once you’re in then you are basically told you are saving the world and so why would you want to do anything else?...

There have been people who have been following this organization, kind of trying to report on it since certainly long before I ever heard of it. And so, the record is available, the record can be read. And of course now, thanks to the Internet, an awful lot of the record is available to anybody who’s curious and I think that is actually creating some problems for them. But, what they simply do is argument ad hominem. They say, well, so-and-so who broke this story is actually a drug peddler or, you know, their so-and-so is a sexual deviant. And, you know, you get a lot of peer pressure going and people, after awhile, just feel embarrassed to even ask about it. So, on the other hand, now, because there are a number of people who’ve been in the organization and left it, and in some cases, a lot of people just don’t want to talk about it anymore, it’s an embarrassing part of their lives. But there are a few people who’ve created websites and discussion groups who remember things and they talk about them and they put up documents and they put up quotations from things where LaRouche made various anti-Semitic statements and said fairly racist-sounding things about jazz and rock music and so on. And, you know, a fact is a stupid thing. You can’t always make a fact do what you want it to...

Interview with Scott McLemee, http://uprisingradio.org/home/?p=1778

To read what others have to say about LYM, read here:

The LaRoucheplanet page about LYM: http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Cult.LYM

And:

http://www.msuspokesman.com/news/2003/09/19/Perspectives/The-Brainwashed.Youth.Of.Lyndon.Larouche-524887.shtml

http://www.rickross.com/reference/larouche/larouche49.html

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2381/activist-group-trespasses-on-bu-property

http://www.cychron.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=5193783a-d206-435b-a5f1-907dd83e2027

http://dailyuw.com/2004/10/14/vocal-over-politics/

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2007/06/07/larouche-followers-continue-video-game-assault-at-virginia-tech-hearings

http://sundial.csun.edu/2.4505/larouche-movement-s-comparisons-must-be-ignored-1.409841

http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/activists-lob-meat-condoms-1.208398

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2007/09/27/larouche-party-sees-halo-3-ushering-in-new-dark-age

http://www.ocweekly.com/2006-11-23/news/lyndon-ladouche/

http://crookedtimber.org/2007/07/11/lyndon-larouche-mystery-theater/

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/mclemee/mclemee132

http://www.artsjournal.com/quickstudy/2007/10/loafing_with_larouche.html

The library of a young LaRouche organizer! :o)

2009-04-01T20:26:00.005+02:00

LaRouche Youthmovement, LYM - a "mind rape"!

2009-04-01T17:26:00.007+02:00

Today I want to share with you this article and collection of posts from the Factnet by Dennis King, that includes this appeal to LYM:

"Of "the yutes," I say only this: "Please leave as soon as you can do so from this thing that is raping you." I don't ask this for any other reason than [that] you will have a greater peace of mind in your departing from this evil thing. You will eventually reconcile the good and the bad within you once out of the raping of your well-intentioned minds. It won't be "perfect," for such is not the thing given to human beings. But, you'll have a shot at the attempt if you leave. You don't have a sick ghost of a chance if you stay."