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
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
KKK collaborator of Lyndon LaRouche, Roy Frankhouser, dies!
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
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
Friday, May 15, 2009
Lyndon LaRouche, the nonagapic homophobe that thinks it is right to beat homosexuals!!
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.
/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.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Cult or no cult? (Part 4) Is Lyndon LaRouche omnipotent and Omniscent, or just a macho bully?
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!
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
http://eap-larouche.blogspot.com/
/T
Sunday, May 10, 2009
The tour James Bevel did to Australia 2004
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
.
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
.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
The deeds of a good friend of Lyndon LaRouche...
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
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
Friday, May 8, 2009
Cult or no cult? (Part 3) THE LAROUCHE MOVEMENT AS A CLASSIC CULT
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.”
.
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.”
.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Confessions by someone who is NOT a coward!
.
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
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
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Cult or no cult? (part 2) To "live within a lie"...
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
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
Monday, May 4, 2009
Cult or no cult? (part 1) Luxury and poverty..
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
.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Lyndon LaRouche acts like Mao: "Eliminate the useless eaters"!
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
