Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Scientific knowledge according to the LaRouchemovement :o)

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.


Tuesday, April 28, 2009

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

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!" ( )

The 1997 visit to Nigeria was the highpoint of the cooperation between the LaRouchecult and the Nigerian dictator 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.
" ( )

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!


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: , .

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:;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.( )

"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!


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.


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.



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!


To read the earlier posts in this series, click here:


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:


Monday, April 27, 2009

Washington Post. Articles about Lyndon LaRouche!

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."


Sunday, April 26, 2009

What Socrates had to say about Lyndon LaRouche!

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!


Click the link to read:


Friday, April 24, 2009

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

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. ( )

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: )

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 ( ).

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."( )

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:


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


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].

^ Last updated on 6 February 2007
^ JURIST - Paper Chase: Suspected Rwanda war criminal arrested in Germany

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!

"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;

("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!


To the first article:


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:

Please do a search on the google for more examples of the cooperation between the RDR and LaRouche:"Rally+for+Democracy+in+Rwanda"++LaRouche&btnG=Sök&meta=


Wednesday, April 22, 2009

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

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!


Here is the links to all posts in this series:

* A previous post on Lyndon LaRouche in Africa can be found here:


* 1) This post, The friends of Lyndon LaRouche in Africa: dictators, lunatics and genocidialists:

* 2) Wanted, for crimes against the humanity, the case of LaRouches friends in Rwanda:

* 3) Lyndon LaRouche and Nigeria:


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:


An ex. LYM member writes about friendship and organizing

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:

If you want to read the original post, and perhaps comment it, look here:


Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Health problems among older organizers?

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!!!





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...

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!


Saturday, April 18, 2009


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.


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.


Thursday, April 16, 2009

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

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."

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

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


Wednesday, April 15, 2009

CULTS: Danger Signs in Cults

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.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

New postings on my anti-LaRouchian sourceblog

New recent posts on !

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

Article from 1996 on the methods of the australian organization of LaRouche, the CEC-



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

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 for details or see 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 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.

Monday, April 13, 2009

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

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 

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