Today I am posting an exchange between me and a person that commented one of my posts!
There are an increasing number of older organizers in the USA that get health problems. Much due to the methods used while organizing. Older members are locked up in a dusty and noicy rooom seven days a week for 30 years. Off course that effects their health.
The organization is not taking responsibility for the result of their policies. Least of all do the "old geezer", Lyndon LaRouche, do so!
Do not blame the "war" for mankind.
The lousy environment the members of the organizations work in, especially in the USA, and the loooooong days which they spend in the offices or on the "field" (seven days or six and a half days a week) are often motivated by the organization with "that the organization is in war". As in war, the conditions therefore have to be less good.
But once again. Only a lousy, lousy, lousy commander would ever let their troops work seven days a week. Even Patton, that believed that soldiers could learn to live with just two hours sleep a night, and still be efficient (sic!), knew that once in a while the soldiers need to rest and come away from the battlefield and that they need the BEST POSSIBLE environment around themselves.
Only a cult leader, a slavery proponent, or a mad general, would make the soldiers work as the "soldiers" of the American organization do!
And this is now the model for the organization worldwide!!!
Scary!
/T
PS
HERE IS THE EXCHANGE
Freedomfighter said...
Thanks for the answer, but you repeat what you already said in the text - my question was if you think the many early deaths among many american LaRouche-full time members might have to do with this slavery? You are probably not a doctor, but that was my question and it would be interesting to hear what you as a former full time member think about it and if you know what other members in America thought about it etc?
APRIL 20, 2009 6:29 PM
European said...
Well...
I think it does not promote their health. I think that organizers that work as much as they did, and DO, in the American organization will die an early death.
Organizing differed between Europe and USA. In Europe we used to work less than in USA. This might differ now when Lyndon has are pushing "american" fundraising methods and "american" youth organizing as the model for worldwide organizing.
I remember visiting USA in 2003. I spent some time in the offices and worked with the fund raising teams there. The working conditions were less than LOUSY.
In Baltimore they had a large sterile, dusty room with about 10 people (boomers) sitting in a kind of circle with their desks. The level of noice was GREAT. I use hearing aid (I have heard bad since I was a kid) and could not organize on the phones. I could not hear a thing with ten other people shouting to get heard. I heard from some of the other phone-organizers that they are getting hearing problems. NO WONDER!
And how often are the carpets cleaned? How often are the stacks of literature removed and the dust cleaned away?
The organizers on the phones are sitting all days a week in an unheatlthy environment.
It is not exactly healthy either to be outdoor in the city all days...
Ok. The Baltimore local might be a special case. But look at Leesburg and Philly! Ok, the older organizers in Philly had flowers and screens to lower the noice level and create a nicer environment in the room where they spent most of their lives. The baltimore local had none of this! But still. I, who was mainly a phone organizer in Sweden, could not work on the phones in there either, due to the insane noice level.
I ask myself if the older organizers show signs of being hearing impaired and if they show signs of asthma and similar allergical reactions?
I already know the answer! Yes, they do!!! In 2003 I saw that!
Do they get treatment for this? Do they get hearing aid? And is it ackowledged by Lyndon that the health problems are due to the organization? Is he thankful because they have sacrificed so much for him?
Good question!
/T
Showing posts with label Youth movement fascism helga lyndon LaRouche cult leadership youthmovement KKK racism kult sekt schillerinstitute Europeiska Arbetarpartiet LYM EAP sverige Sweden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Youth movement fascism helga lyndon LaRouche cult leadership youthmovement KKK racism kult sekt schillerinstitute Europeiska Arbetarpartiet LYM EAP sverige Sweden. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
FACTNET!
Today I will recommend you to visit the discussion on factnet about LaRouche. This is a place were you can follow an ongoing discussion about the nature of this cult, and the cultleader.
http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showthread.php?t=12941
PS
Here is an answer I posted to a comment on my blog. A person asked why LaRouche is seen as Christ by so many members. (One of his friends in LYM in Sweden does so.)
"We belived that LaRouche was like Christ, yes, and like Socrates. Or even superior of both of them!
Some believed so in a religious sense (but very few), some in a pseudoreligious one. Others believed so because there was similarities in the "political work" of Christ and LaRouche (as we saw it). I would say that for most members they were the same kind of POLITICAL force, but as the cultleader he was this admiration had religious similarites!
I still remember in 1992 when LaRouche was in jail, and I visited USA, that many members had photos of LaRouche in their wallets, or on tables like a house altar. I remember that the person managing the finances in Baltimore lighted a candle, in front of a photo of him, EVERY DAY to REMEMBER AND ADORE LaRouche.
/T
http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showthread.php?t=12941
PS
Here is an answer I posted to a comment on my blog. A person asked why LaRouche is seen as Christ by so many members. (One of his friends in LYM in Sweden does so.)
"We belived that LaRouche was like Christ, yes, and like Socrates. Or even superior of both of them!
Some believed so in a religious sense (but very few), some in a pseudoreligious one. Others believed so because there was similarities in the "political work" of Christ and LaRouche (as we saw it). I would say that for most members they were the same kind of POLITICAL force, but as the cultleader he was this admiration had religious similarites!
I still remember in 1992 when LaRouche was in jail, and I visited USA, that many members had photos of LaRouche in their wallets, or on tables like a house altar. I remember that the person managing the finances in Baltimore lighted a candle, in front of a photo of him, EVERY DAY to REMEMBER AND ADORE LaRouche.
/T
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
CULTS: Danger Signs in Cults
Developing objective early warning signs:
If one wishes to develop objective criteria for distinguishing harmful or potentially harmful religious organizations from harmless religions, one needs to place oneself in the position of a public policy maker. From this perspective, religions that raise the most concern are those groups that tangibly, physically harm members and/or non-members, or engage in other anti-social/illegal acts. However, a public policy maker might well respond that this post facto criterion is too little too late, and that what is needed are criteria that could act as early warning signs--criteria indicating that a previously innocuous group is potentially "going bad." The following discussion will make a stab at developing such criteria, with the caveat that the presence of the less serious factors listed below in any given group does not automatically mean they are on the verge of becoming the next Heaven's Gate.
Charismatic Leader: As part of this discussion, we shall be referring to a few false criteria for distinguishing a healthy from an unhealthy religion. In the first place, the mere fact that a group is headed up by a charismatic leader does not automatically raise a red flag. This is because new religions are much like new businesses: new businesses are almost always the manifestation of the vision and work of a single entrepreneur. In contrast, few if any successful businesses are the outgrowth of the work of a committee.
Divine Authority: Also, to found a religion, a leader usually makes some sort of claim to special insight or to special revelation that legitimates both the new religion and the leader's right to lead. The founder may even claim to be prophet, messiah or avatar. While many critics of alternative religions have asserted that the assumption of such authority is in itself a danger sign, too many objectively harmless groups have come into being with the leader asserting divine authority for such claims to be meaningful danger signs.
Use of Authority: Far more important than one's claim to authority is what one does with the authority once he or she attracts followers who choose to recognize it. A minister or guru who focuses her or his pronouncements on the interpretation of scripture or on other matters having to do with religion proper is far less problematic than a leader who takes it upon her- or himself to make decisions in the personal lives of individual parishioners, such as dictating (as opposed to suggesting) who and when one will marry. The line between advising and ordering others with respect to their personal lives can, however, be quite thin. A useful criterion for determining whether or not this line has been crossed is to examine what happens when one acts against the guru's advice: If one can respectfully disagree about a particular item of personal--as opposed to religious--advice without suffering negative consequences as a result, then the leadership dynamics within the group are healthy with respect to authority issues.
One of the clearest signs that leaders are overstepping their proper sphere of authority is when they articulate certain ethical guidelines that everyone must follow except for the guru or minister. This is especially the case with a differential sexual ethic that restricts the sexual activity of followers but allows leaders to initiate liaisons with whomever they choose.
Above the Law: Perhaps the most serious danger sign is when a religious group places itself above the law, although there are some nuances that make this point trickier than it might first appear. All of us, in some sphere of life, place ourselves above the law, if only when we go a few miles per hour over the speed limit or fudge a few figures on our income tax returns. Also, when push comes to shove, almost every religion in the world would be willing to assert that divine law takes precedence over human law--should they ever come into conflict. Hence a group that, for example, solicits donations in an area where soliciting is forbidden should not, on that basis alone, be viewed as danger to society. Exceptions should also be made for groups or individuals who make a very public protest against certain laws judged as immoral, as when a contentious objector goes to jail rather than be drafted into the military.
On the other hand, it should be clear that a group leader who consistently violates serious laws has developed a rationale that could easily be used to legitimate more serious anti-social acts. Examples that come readily to mind are Marshall Hertiff, founder/leader of Heaven's Gate, who regularly ducked out on motel bills and who was once even arrested for stealing a rental car, and Swami Kirtananda, founder of the New Vrindavan community, who was caught authorizing the stealing of computer software before being arrested for ordering the murder of a community critic. Documentable child abuse and other illegalities committed within the organization are also covered by this criterion.
End of the World Scenarios: Another misconceived criterion is perceiving groups as dangerous because of apocalyptic theologies. Almost every religion in the larger Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition has an apocalyptic theology, even the traditional peace churches that forbid members from participating in the military. Thus, contrary to the assertions of some contemporary critics of religion, having an apocalyptic theology does not, in itself, raise a red flag. This is because in most apocalyptic scenarios it is God and his angels who fight the final battle, not flesh-and-blood human beings. The human role is spiritual, and the "saved" fight a spiritual war, not a literal, physical war.
An apocalyptic theology is only dangerous when individual followers believe they are going to be called upon to be foot soldiers in God's army, and prepare themselves by stocking up on weapons and ammunition. Groups that come to mind here are some of the Identity Christian churches who see themselves as preparing to fight a literal war with God's enemies. On the other hand, a community's possession of firearms--in the absence of such a theology of physical confrontation--is probably not dangerous, if no other danger signs are present. If the simple possession of firearms by members was a significant danger sign, then the Southern Baptist Convention would be the most dangerous "cult" in the nation.
Salvation: Another false, yet frequently voiced criterion is that religious groups are dangerous which see only themselves as saved and the rest of the world as damned. Like apocalypticism, this trait is far too widespread among traditional religions to constitute an authentic danger sign. A more meaningful characteristic should be how a religion actually treats non-members.
Group Isolation: Another criterion is a group's relative isolation. This trait is somewhat more complex than the others we have examined. On the one hand, there are abundant examples of traditional religions establishing communities or monastic centers apart from the larger society that have posed no danger to anyone. On the other hand, some of the worst abuses have taken place in the segregated (usually communal) sub-societies of certain minority religions. From the suicidal violence of People's Temple to the externally-directed violence of AUM Shinrikyo, it was the social dynamics found in an isolated or semi-isolated community that allowed such extreme actions to be contemplated.
In order to flag this characteristic while simultaneously avoiding stigmatizing every religion that sets up a segregated society as being potentially dangerous, it might be best to invert this trait and state it as a counter-indicator. In other words, rather than asserting that any religion with a partially isolated community is potentially dangerous, let us instead assert that the relative lack of such boundaries indicates that the group in question is almost certainly not dangerous.
Deception: A final early warning sign is a group's readiness to deceive outsiders. Some critics have asserted that a recruiter who invites a potential convert to a dinner without mentioning that the event is being sponsored by such-and-such church is deceptive. Others have criticized religions possessing a hierarchical system of knowledge to which only initiates are privy. These kinds of criticisms are silly. When a guru publicly asserts that no one in his organization is involved in illegal drugs and police later find a LSD laboratory in his basement, that's deception.
Warning signs:
To summarize, the traits we designated above as early warning signs of 'bad religion'" are:
The organization is willing to place itself above the law. With the exceptions noted earlier, this is probably the most important characteristic.
The leadership dictates (rather than suggests) important personal (as opposed to spiritual) details of followers' lives, such as whom to marry, what to study in college, etc.
The leader sets forth ethical guidelines members must follow but from which the leader is exempt.
The group is preparing to fight a literal, physical Armageddon against other human beings.
The leader regularly makes public assertions that he or she knows is false and/or the group has a policy of routinely deceiving outsiders.
Finally, we noted that, while many benign religions establish semi-segregated communities, socially dangerous religions are almost always isolated or partially isolated from the larger society.
These five traits are about as close as one can get to legitimate, objective criteria for judging whether or not a given religious organization is going--or has gone--"bad." With the exception of placing the group's actions above the law, none of these characteristics, taken by themselves, are necessarily cause for alarm. On the other hand, a group possessing more than one or two of the above traits might well bear closer scrutiny. As a corollary to this line of analysis, minority religions possessing none of the above traits are, from a public policy standpoint, almost certainly harmless.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/safe_sec.htm
If one wishes to develop objective criteria for distinguishing harmful or potentially harmful religious organizations from harmless religions, one needs to place oneself in the position of a public policy maker. From this perspective, religions that raise the most concern are those groups that tangibly, physically harm members and/or non-members, or engage in other anti-social/illegal acts. However, a public policy maker might well respond that this post facto criterion is too little too late, and that what is needed are criteria that could act as early warning signs--criteria indicating that a previously innocuous group is potentially "going bad." The following discussion will make a stab at developing such criteria, with the caveat that the presence of the less serious factors listed below in any given group does not automatically mean they are on the verge of becoming the next Heaven's Gate.
Charismatic Leader: As part of this discussion, we shall be referring to a few false criteria for distinguishing a healthy from an unhealthy religion. In the first place, the mere fact that a group is headed up by a charismatic leader does not automatically raise a red flag. This is because new religions are much like new businesses: new businesses are almost always the manifestation of the vision and work of a single entrepreneur. In contrast, few if any successful businesses are the outgrowth of the work of a committee.
Divine Authority: Also, to found a religion, a leader usually makes some sort of claim to special insight or to special revelation that legitimates both the new religion and the leader's right to lead. The founder may even claim to be prophet, messiah or avatar. While many critics of alternative religions have asserted that the assumption of such authority is in itself a danger sign, too many objectively harmless groups have come into being with the leader asserting divine authority for such claims to be meaningful danger signs.
Use of Authority: Far more important than one's claim to authority is what one does with the authority once he or she attracts followers who choose to recognize it. A minister or guru who focuses her or his pronouncements on the interpretation of scripture or on other matters having to do with religion proper is far less problematic than a leader who takes it upon her- or himself to make decisions in the personal lives of individual parishioners, such as dictating (as opposed to suggesting) who and when one will marry. The line between advising and ordering others with respect to their personal lives can, however, be quite thin. A useful criterion for determining whether or not this line has been crossed is to examine what happens when one acts against the guru's advice: If one can respectfully disagree about a particular item of personal--as opposed to religious--advice without suffering negative consequences as a result, then the leadership dynamics within the group are healthy with respect to authority issues.
One of the clearest signs that leaders are overstepping their proper sphere of authority is when they articulate certain ethical guidelines that everyone must follow except for the guru or minister. This is especially the case with a differential sexual ethic that restricts the sexual activity of followers but allows leaders to initiate liaisons with whomever they choose.
Above the Law: Perhaps the most serious danger sign is when a religious group places itself above the law, although there are some nuances that make this point trickier than it might first appear. All of us, in some sphere of life, place ourselves above the law, if only when we go a few miles per hour over the speed limit or fudge a few figures on our income tax returns. Also, when push comes to shove, almost every religion in the world would be willing to assert that divine law takes precedence over human law--should they ever come into conflict. Hence a group that, for example, solicits donations in an area where soliciting is forbidden should not, on that basis alone, be viewed as danger to society. Exceptions should also be made for groups or individuals who make a very public protest against certain laws judged as immoral, as when a contentious objector goes to jail rather than be drafted into the military.
On the other hand, it should be clear that a group leader who consistently violates serious laws has developed a rationale that could easily be used to legitimate more serious anti-social acts. Examples that come readily to mind are Marshall Hertiff, founder/leader of Heaven's Gate, who regularly ducked out on motel bills and who was once even arrested for stealing a rental car, and Swami Kirtananda, founder of the New Vrindavan community, who was caught authorizing the stealing of computer software before being arrested for ordering the murder of a community critic. Documentable child abuse and other illegalities committed within the organization are also covered by this criterion.
End of the World Scenarios: Another misconceived criterion is perceiving groups as dangerous because of apocalyptic theologies. Almost every religion in the larger Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition has an apocalyptic theology, even the traditional peace churches that forbid members from participating in the military. Thus, contrary to the assertions of some contemporary critics of religion, having an apocalyptic theology does not, in itself, raise a red flag. This is because in most apocalyptic scenarios it is God and his angels who fight the final battle, not flesh-and-blood human beings. The human role is spiritual, and the "saved" fight a spiritual war, not a literal, physical war.
An apocalyptic theology is only dangerous when individual followers believe they are going to be called upon to be foot soldiers in God's army, and prepare themselves by stocking up on weapons and ammunition. Groups that come to mind here are some of the Identity Christian churches who see themselves as preparing to fight a literal war with God's enemies. On the other hand, a community's possession of firearms--in the absence of such a theology of physical confrontation--is probably not dangerous, if no other danger signs are present. If the simple possession of firearms by members was a significant danger sign, then the Southern Baptist Convention would be the most dangerous "cult" in the nation.
Salvation: Another false, yet frequently voiced criterion is that religious groups are dangerous which see only themselves as saved and the rest of the world as damned. Like apocalypticism, this trait is far too widespread among traditional religions to constitute an authentic danger sign. A more meaningful characteristic should be how a religion actually treats non-members.
Group Isolation: Another criterion is a group's relative isolation. This trait is somewhat more complex than the others we have examined. On the one hand, there are abundant examples of traditional religions establishing communities or monastic centers apart from the larger society that have posed no danger to anyone. On the other hand, some of the worst abuses have taken place in the segregated (usually communal) sub-societies of certain minority religions. From the suicidal violence of People's Temple to the externally-directed violence of AUM Shinrikyo, it was the social dynamics found in an isolated or semi-isolated community that allowed such extreme actions to be contemplated.
In order to flag this characteristic while simultaneously avoiding stigmatizing every religion that sets up a segregated society as being potentially dangerous, it might be best to invert this trait and state it as a counter-indicator. In other words, rather than asserting that any religion with a partially isolated community is potentially dangerous, let us instead assert that the relative lack of such boundaries indicates that the group in question is almost certainly not dangerous.
Deception: A final early warning sign is a group's readiness to deceive outsiders. Some critics have asserted that a recruiter who invites a potential convert to a dinner without mentioning that the event is being sponsored by such-and-such church is deceptive. Others have criticized religions possessing a hierarchical system of knowledge to which only initiates are privy. These kinds of criticisms are silly. When a guru publicly asserts that no one in his organization is involved in illegal drugs and police later find a LSD laboratory in his basement, that's deception.
Warning signs:
To summarize, the traits we designated above as early warning signs of 'bad religion'" are:
The organization is willing to place itself above the law. With the exceptions noted earlier, this is probably the most important characteristic.
The leadership dictates (rather than suggests) important personal (as opposed to spiritual) details of followers' lives, such as whom to marry, what to study in college, etc.
The leader sets forth ethical guidelines members must follow but from which the leader is exempt.
The group is preparing to fight a literal, physical Armageddon against other human beings.
The leader regularly makes public assertions that he or she knows is false and/or the group has a policy of routinely deceiving outsiders.
Finally, we noted that, while many benign religions establish semi-segregated communities, socially dangerous religions are almost always isolated or partially isolated from the larger society.
These five traits are about as close as one can get to legitimate, objective criteria for judging whether or not a given religious organization is going--or has gone--"bad." With the exception of placing the group's actions above the law, none of these characteristics, taken by themselves, are necessarily cause for alarm. On the other hand, a group possessing more than one or two of the above traits might well bear closer scrutiny. As a corollary to this line of analysis, minority religions possessing none of the above traits are, from a public policy standpoint, almost certainly harmless.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/safe_sec.htm
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
HOW TO DETERMINE IF A GROUP IS A DESTRUCTIVE CULT
HOW TO DETERMINE IF A GROUP IS A DESTRUCTIVE CULT
"The cult has basically only two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising."
http://www.factnet.org/rancho5.htm
Q) Anybody can unfairly attack a group they disagree with by calling it a cult or saying they are using coercive mind control. How does FACTNet prevent this type of problem and determine fairly whether or not a group is a cult?
A) FACTNet uses specific criteria to determine if a mind control system has been used, and does not suggest organizations are destructive or dangerous cults without careful research and determination that the evidence fits definite criteria. These criteria are threefold.
The first set of criteria comes from the group' use of a specific set of mind control tactics. Please see "A technical overview of mind control tactics at http://www.factnet.org/rancho1.htm for details or see http://www.factnet.org/coercivemindcontrol.html for a shorter version.
These two documents are derived from the work of Dr. Margaret Singer professor emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley the acknowledged leading authority in the world on mind control and cults.
The second set of criteria has to do with defining other common elements of mind control systems, as defined by Robert Jay Lifton's eight point model of thought reform. Please see "Robert Jay Lifton's Eight Point Model of Thought Reform" also at http://www.factnet.org/rancho1.htm. If most points in this model are being used in a cultic organization, it is most likely a dangerous and destructive cult.
The third set of criteria have to do with defining common elements of destructive and dangerous cults.The following section will help clarify what some of those specific elements and criteria are.
Common Properties of Potentially Destructive and Dangerous Cults
The cult is authoritarian in its power structure. The leader is regarded as the supreme authority. He or she may delegate certain power to a few subordinates for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to the leader's wishes and roles. There is no appeal outside of his or her system to greater systems of justice. For example, if a school teacher
feels unjustly treated by a principal, appeals can be made. In a cult, the leader claims to have the only and final ruling on all matters.
The cult's leaders tend to be charismatic, determined, and
domineering. They persuade followers to drop their families, jobs, careers, and friends to follow them. They (not the individual) then take over control of their followers' possessions, money, lives.
The cult's leaders are self-appointed, messianic persons who claim to have a special mission in life.For example, the flying saucer cult leaders claim that people from outer space have commissioned them to lead people to special places to await a space ship.
The cult's leaders center the veneration of members upon themselves. Priests, rabbis, ministers, democratic leaders, and leaders of genuinely altruistic movements keep the veneration of adherents focused on God, abstract principles, and group purposes. Cult leaders, in contrast, keep the focus of love, devotion, and allegiance on themselves.
The cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of the behavior of its members. Cults are likely to dictate in great detail what members wear, eat, when and where they work, sleep, and bathe-as well as what to believe, think, and say.
The cult tends to have a double set of ethics. Members are urged to be open and honest within the group, and confess all to the leaders. On the other hand, they are encouraged to deceive and manipulate outsiders or nonmembers. Established religions teach members to be honest and truthful to all, and to abide by one set of ethics.
The cult has basically only two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising. Established religions and altruistic movements may also recruit and raise funds. However, their sole purpose is not to grow larger; such groups have the goals to better the lives of their members and mankind in general. The cults may claim to make social contributions, but in actuality these remain mere claims, or gestures. Their focus is always dominated by recruiting new members and fund-raising.
The cult appears to be innovative and exclusive. The leader claims to be breaking with tradition, offering something novel, and instituting the only viable system for change that will solve life's problems or the world's ills. While claiming this, the cult then surreptitiously uses systems of psychological coercion on its members to inhibit their ability to examine the actual validity of the claims of the leader and the cult.
Read more here: http://www.factnet.org/rancho4.htm
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
