Today it is April 11. Two years ago Kenneth Kronberg committed suicide! The story behind the suicide is that Lyndon LaRouche was inducing him to commit suicide.
Please visit the memorial site of Ken Kronberg!
http://www.kennethkronberg.com/KK/
For information on the suicide, read here:
http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0711.klein.html
And now, two years after, Lyndon LaRouche is blaming Kens wife Molly for the suicide and for conspiring against LaRouche for 30 years. What a vile lie!
/T
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Cult or no cult? Steven Hassan's B.I.T.E. Mind Control Model shows what LaRouches movement really is!
I sat down tonight to write my thoughts about the cult-methods of Lyndon LaRouche, following the Mind Control Model of Steven Hassan... But when googling I found that http://www.laroucheplanet.info already had an excellent article with a lot of examples on this subject.
So I am posting the link here instead for you to read.
/T
A comment on moderation of comments
I will moderate all comments from now on. I wont censor anybody that critizises me, if you think so. But I had to remove a comment by someone who called himself "Agape" (sic!) who tried to reveal some of the real names of people that post on the Factnet and who were extremely unpolite and full of rage against me.
That makes it necessary for me to start to look at the comments before they are posted.
/T
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Ex. LYM members speak out!
I have opened a second twinblog of this blog today. It is a blog where I will be posting stories, articles and forumposts of different kinds, that I like.
I will focus on the stories of former members, especially former LYM members. If you look at the sidebar to the right you can find a collection of links to posts on that new blog, that is posts by former LYM-members. That list will increase very much in the coming months.
Please look at the posts that are already posted here. Stories from different ex. LYM-members during the last years.
/T
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
My friend/child is a LYM member. Where can I get help?
If your friend, or child or relative is a member of the LaRouchemovement and you need someone to talk to, you should contact an organization that works to help relatives of members in a cult, or that helps people to escape from cult.
Dont get fooled by the fact that the organization in some parts of the world (like in Sweden) seems to be more "liberal". It is a "light"-version of a cult in some places of the world, but still a cult.
I would recommend the following webbsites. AGPF in Germany, FRI in Sweden and Steven Hassans informationscenter Freedomofmind in the USA:
Factnet is a good place for information on cults, and it is a forum for discussion among ex. members too: http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/forumdisplay.php?f=1229
There is an umbrella organzation for European organizations that helps ex. members of sects. On this site you can find links to French, German, Danish and Italian sites with information about sects, and contactinformation if you whant to get in touch with them: http://www.fecris.org/
Please read the following articles and statements by parents of members in the LaRouchemovement/LYM too!
/T
Family members fight back the cult:
Statement by family to German member of the LaRouchemovement:
http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-families.htm#one
Statement by family "Ada", mother of a member of the LaRouchemovement:
http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-families.htm#three
Statement by French parents:
http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-families.htm#four
Statement by the parents of a French LYM member:
http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-families.htm#five
Statement by Australian parents:
http://lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-families.htm#six
Statement by former LYM member from France:
PS
Please look at this article too about why Lyndon LaRouche and his LYM-cult wants to censor the internet. The quote below is quite revealing. It wants to censor the internet to make sure that people dont leave the cult! (From a discussion in 2007 between youth in the cult and the cult-guru Lyndon LaRouche about Facebook and Myspace and why that is "satanic".)
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The threedimensional model: A model to describe EAP, LYM and Lyndon LaRouche!
I got the question how I would describe the movement I once was a member in!
If I should describe the organization in a few word, what would I say that it is a totalitarian and despotic political cult with a dualistic, conspiratorical worldview where everything is divided into good and evil, and it has a pseudoreligious method of work, where it is claimed that the "final days are near" and only the members can save humanity... if they only obey the leader of the cult, i.e. Lyndon LaRouche!
Thus I would describe it. But it is not enough. It wont still explain all the puzzeling facts about the movement. Such as how to reconcile its fascist and cult-like views with its non-racist methods.
I recently heard about a model that makes it easier to understand LaRouche and his movement, the so called "threedimensional model".
The threedimensional model
Many are puzzled by the movement LaRouche has created. It is not similar to anything else and all attempts to compare it to similar movements fail.
Some Swedish authors, that have written about the modern fascism, believe that all totalitarian movements can be described by looking at three different things, the so called three dimensional model. The essay by Mattias Gardell in this anthology is one example of this. (The anthology "Brunt", red. Deland and Westin, 2007! http://www.bokforlagetatlas.se/index.php?sid=2&pid=16&showtitle=291 )
(The three dimensions are described in my words, a bit simplified.)
1) They are either leftwing or rightwing extremists, or move back and forth on this scale... (The division between left and right is not absolute, because some movements, like the one LaRouche founded, can have elements of both left and right. The Strasserists were a kind of leftwing nazis. Mussolini started his political work as leftwing and were later rightwing.)
2) They are either centralized or decentralized, (I.e. they have a strong leader, and is perhaps run as a cult) or they are run very autonomously with individuals and groups working for themselves without leadership. They might have a political ideology where the worldview of the leader/leaders are absolute truth too, and where there is a demand that all members stick to that truth and no opposition is allowed, or they dont have this ideology.
3) They are either racist and perhaps for a culturally and/or religiously homogenous society, or they are for a racially, culturally and religiously pluralistic society. (Nationalists or globalists...)
Some others add a fourth dimension, I would agree on that:
4) They are pro violence or not violent.
Gardell writes this about Lyndon LaRouche and his Swedish organization, EAP in the anthology "Brunt" (page 59): "Many view LaRouche as bizarre. This threedimensional model shows that LaRouce, even if the position he has in the model is not so common, can be understood as a rightwingcentralist of a fascist kind, but with global ambitions and a pluralistic orientation and membership, i.e. multiethnical and from many religions."
("För många framstår LaRouche som bisarr. Den tredimensionella modellen visar att LaRouche, även om hans positionering är ovanlig, kan förstås som en högercentralist av fascistiskt snitt men med globala ambitioner och pluralistisk - mångetnisk, mångreligiös - orientering och medlemskår!")
There is much truth in this model and it helps to explain a phenomena like the LaRouchemovement and Lyndon LaRouche, even if I disagree somewhat with the description of LaRouche as rightwing, it is actually both leftwing and rightwing at the same time!
Lets therefore clairfy it a bit!
My version of the model
This is a description in my words, of some examples that can illustrate this model, but with a corrected view of LaRouche and with the fourth dimension added... (And I am comparing LaRouche to other groups.)
The LaRouchemovement is not left or right in the normal sense. It is very centralized, so much that it is a cult. It is nonhomogenous and pluralistic and it is non violent.
The nazis in the 30s in Germany can be describes as rightwing, very centralized, so much that it too was a cult. It was extremely homogenous and nonpluralistic and very violent.
In the same way leftists can be described. The RAF in the 70s can be described as leftwing, very centralized, so much that it too was a cult. Somewhat nonhomogenous and somewhat pluralistic and very violent.
The LEFTIST militant "green"anarchists of today (Like Animal Liberaltion Front) can be described as leftwing, very decentralized, nonhomogenous and pluralistic and selectively violent.
Conclusion
We need to be precise when describing the global movement of Lyndon LaRouche. The threedimensional model, or perhaps even a fourdimensional one, can help describing what it is.
And it helps to explain why some fascist movements, like LaRouches, can be for a multhiethnical society, with people of all races, cultures and creeds.
/T
Monday, April 6, 2009
Lyndon LaRouche and Africa: development AND dictatorship!
This is a thing I have written for all members of the LaRouche Youthmovement (LYM) and for all those that might still believe that LaRouche is democratic, or even perhaps a "Democrat"!
Food aid for Africa. Development projects to make the deserts green. Trans-African railroads. Industries. Calling starvation a "holocaust"... Wonderful ideas, I believed! Especially for me that had read Martin Luther Kings last book where King says that one day the 20th century, when people were starving and living in poverty, would be viewed as we in the 20th century views cannibalism and slavery or the nazi holocaust. As madness!
I still share this idea of Martin Luther King. I must confess. Starvation in a world of plenty is so barbaric that I without any doubt say that it is as barbaric as cannibalism and the holocaust! INSANE!
The LaRouchian views of Africa was very much one of the reasons why I joined the organization
In the 90s and early 2000s I worked with the organization in many things that had to do with Africa. The "genocide in Rwanda", Nigeria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Congo/Zaire, Kenya, etc... In Sweden we held a lot of conferences on the subject of African development, and we did much work on Africa. We had many friends in the African exile community, and among the embassies of African countries, in Sweden, like the Zimbabwian embassy.
It is still like this. The organization gains much credit from its work with African issues...
The LYM in Sweden and globally are involved in much work that has to do with Africa. One recent speech by one of them about nuclear power in Africa, Portia Strid, is gaining much credibility all over the globe: http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2009/04/portia-strids-vision-for-african.html .
Double standards
But when looking at my years in the organization in 2003, just before I left the organization, I started to see a lot of really scary stuff.
I began to ask myself... "Yes, the organization was for the development of Africa. Yes, it was opposing racism in every way... But... What about freedom and democracy? And who are the friends of the organization in Africa! Who would construct all these nice things?"
The truth is that LaRouche is for development and dictatorship!
Mugabe - Zimbabwe
The dictator Robert Mugabe is one of the people LaRouche hope would "develop Africa".!
In the early 1990s Mugabe was no friend of Lyndon LaRouches. It was about this time that the EIR published a book on Tiny Rowland, that was financed by some of Tinys enemies in London. How much money that came from Mohamed 'Al' Fayed and the "friends" of fayed, and was "invested" in this book, I dont know. Perhaps all, perhaps only a part of the cost.
Those who does not know who Tiny is can read Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Rowland
Let me just say that all Afriocans I have met who has known him has HATED him. Perhaps not without reason, his Lonhro company were not exactly known for its "humanistic" methods...
In this book Mugabe in Zimbabwe is described as one of the persons that Tiny, on behalf of Brittish intelligence and the ever omnipresent "oligarchs" has funded and created. We used this example in the 90s. We used to organize Africans by pointing out how Tiny financed the Rhodhesian racists, and both rebel groups that were opposing the racists, among them Mugabe.
But this was at the time when all liberals and democrats globally LOVED Mugabe. Mugabe and Zimbabwe was loved by almost all internationally (exept Lyndon LaRouche and his movement) until he in the end of the 90s turned against the white farmers (and IMF) then the global media and all global "experts" on democracy and liberalism suddenly turned around and decladed that they always had seen Mugabe as a vile dictator! (sic! Double standards is certainly no LaRouchian method only!)
LaRouche and the ICLC did a similar turn and all of a sudden everything that had been written about Zimbabwe earlier was forgotten and Mugabe was described as a "hero" by the movement. And the cooperation between the Zimbabwian dictator and the LaRouchies started. It started when Uwe and Dean (I think it was them) visited Zimbabwe around 2001 - 2002.
It was basicly like this. Mugabe okayed the cooperation with LaRouche in his egoistic propagandistic efforts. (No leader, not even Mugabe, can survive without friends abroad.)
When all people were worried about the lack of democracy in Zimbabwe and the way Mugabe treated his opponent, Tsvangirai, LaRouche instead called Tsvangirai a "british agent and agent of soros". ( http://www.talkzimbabwe.com/news/117/ARTICLE/3847/2008-12-03.html , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chUpfOYZI5A ) When the world was horrified with food disaster in Zimbabwe, due to the expulsion of the farmers, the LaRouchies let the zimbawian embassador in Washington speak at their conferences as some kind of "hero": "Tsvangirai is steered and paid for by the British. This is no secret, Mapuranga said...
To the youngsters in the LaRouchemovement I say today: I still think much was wrong with the system before in Zimbabwe, the system you call the time when the "white farmers" ran everything. Cash-crops like flowers and cotton cannot be eaten. To grow cash-crop on the irrigated soil and food on the irrigated soil created a disaster in 1993 when there was a drought. BUT. ..
1) What would happen if we in Sweden kicked out all our educated farmers and replaced them with people that know less about farming? It would be a disaster. In a similar way it was disaster when this was done in Zimbabwe. THIS IS ABC in the science of agriculture!!! That Mugabe did not want to bring in food from countries above did not help the poor in the country either. Thus poverty and famine spread! And this was the fault of MUGABE, the ally of LaRouche!
2) That Mugabe is a dictator that trows people in jail just because they are opposing him should be looked at. (Isnt this by the way a continuation of the colonial practises of the Brits, Rhodesians and of Tiny, that once upon a time the movement claimed funded and created Mugabe?) Ask yourself why this helps Africans. Is this the right thing to do? Why has LaRouche not opposed the undemocratic methods of Mugabe? Is it the right thing to do to beat opponents that is funded by people like Soros and to throw them in jail without trial? WOULD LAROUCHE DO THE SAME IF HE GOT POWER? (Read the proposal for a Canadian constitution and ask yourself that: http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.com/2009/03/canadian-constitution-blueprint-for.html )
3) Why the hell is Larry Freeman upheld as the "Africa expert" in the USA? If anyone would be a worse dictator than Mugabe, it is Larry! And hey, you Swedes! Ask Stephen Brawer what he knows about Larry since the time he was in the USA. Let him tell you about the methods of Larry and why Stephen left the USA. Ask some of the older members what the youngsters we sent to USA experienced in the 1990 when in Baltimore. Anyone that has seen one of the "shouting sessions" of Larry; with Larry yelling, bullying and insulting organizers!
And dont be fooled by the ordinary LaRouchian trick, to say that "if only" the global attacks against Zimbabwe is stopped it will be more democratic. It wont! It is in a crisis that one sees the true nature of a political leader! What Mugabe is doing, is what he is like!
Sudan - Bashir!
Another "friend" of LaRouche is the dictator in Sudan: Bashir! LaRouche is making a big thing about him nowadays. he should not be brought to the International Court, he says:
"March 20, 2009 (LPAC) -- In discussions yesterday, Lyndon LaRouche emphasized that Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir should not be brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC), a court created by the drug pusher George Soros, and his British Commonwealth ally Lord Mark Malloch Brown. LaRouche pointed to those responsible for the creation of the ICC, a fake court, and asked: "Are you going to allow the head of a nation, Bashir, to be taken before the court of a drug pusher? Do you see the criminality of that?" LaRouche warned any country that goes along with such a decision: "you will be the next to go, by tolerating it.""
LaRouche has supported Sudan ever since the sudanese government in the 80s okayed the cooperation with LaRouche.
Once again one have to ask oneself if it really is necessary to have disctatoship and to trow people in jail without trial, just because you believe you are a country under attack?
Or could it be that LaRouche thinks that the lack of democracy in Sudan is a positivie thing? I know some of you might have problems believing it is so, but look at what LaRouche himself said: in 2001 when he visited Sudan: http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2001/2806_sudan_concluding.html
"In these days, it is fashionable to exaggerate the importance of democracy. Because the idea of democracy, as it is taught by international institutions, which use it as a way of manipulating governments, and manipulating people, is the idea of democracy that comes from where? In European civilization this usage comes directly from the Roman Empire.
Now, how did the Roman Empire control its people? It controlled its people through vox populi, popular opinion. It controlled its people through bread and circuses, by shaping popular opinion. It shaped its opinions by putting the people as spectators to watch Romans kill other Romans as gladiators, and the passions were involved with these kinds of violent spectator sports. And by these mechanisms, the Roman rulers manipulated the people in the name of democracy, into a mob of popular opinion.
Now, we see a lot of that in politics in various forms. The question is, not whether a government is democratic or not. The question is, whether the government is fit to exist or not. That's the issue; whether it's democratically chosen or not is not the question. Is it fit to exist? Are people capable of selecting government which is fit to exist?"
LaRouche talks about saving the democracy one moment, the other he attacks it like in the above mentioned speech in Sudan.
In reality LaRouche would do as he said in his proposal for a CANADIAN CONSTITUTION in 1981. He would make sure that his opponents are not even allowed to vote, and that they have no right to free speech! ( http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.com/2009/03/canadian-constitution-blueprint-for.html )
Nigeria - the freakshow
Around 1997 to 1998 the Nigerian government had a "dialogue" with LaRouche. This was a freakshow! It was at the time when General Abacha ran the country. I can still remember a magazine that was published in Nigeria with a long article about LaRouche. The magazine a magazine of a typical totalitarian regime. There was a photo of the general on basicly every page, and the same photo (!) on almost all pages. Dictators like to see their picture (and their statues) on all pages, you know! And the name of this dictator was on every page, the "great leader Abacha" was even quoted by the people writing about how "soap operas" and cooking recipies in the magazine!...
I remember that this created a bit of a crisis for me, because I looked at some copies of New Federalist and the EIR and... (big surprise!) LYNDON LAROUCHES PICTURE WAS EVERYWHERE AND HIS NAME MENTIONED IN EVERY ARTICLE!
This is how an article in the New federalist described a visit by Helga to Nigeria in 1997: http://american_almanac.tripod.com/helganig.htm
"Mrs. Helga Zepp LaRouche, representing EIR, delivered a presentation on ``The Success of the Chinese Economic Reform and Its Significance for Nigeria: Africa's Secret Weapon for Peace!'' to the Fourth Nigerian Economic Summit on Nov. 19, in the capital, Abuja. Mrs. LaRouche was introduced immediately following the formal seating of Nigeria's Head of State, Gen. Sani Abacha. The speaker following her was Prof. Paul Collier, the director of Oxford University's Center for the Study of African Economics, who departed from his text, to warn the gathering that ``they should be very careful about those who peddle prosperity.'' He went on to present his view of the world's ``model'' economies for the developing world: Indonesia, and Britain's puppet regime of Uganda.
Sani Abacha spoke next, emphasizing that Nigeria was making progress in her drive for stability."
ANC -South Africa
When I joined the movement, in 1988 to 1990, ANC was agents of both the British and the communists in Soviet Union.
Officially the South African Aparthaid regime was supported by the movement because its industries were needed in the future "industrialization of Africa", that we talked much about. But inofficially the only reason was that the South African racists had initiated a cooperation with Lyndon LaRouche.
We did not ask ourselves then, the question why LaRouche did not oppose the racism and TOTALITARIAN method of the Soith African aparthaid regime, but you should do so! We critizised the ANC for murdering people, why did we not critizise the aparthaid regime when they did the same? Ask LaRouche why!
Rwanda and Uganda
In 1997 the Rwandan crisis and holocaust started.
The LaRouchies immediately blamed the tutsies and the Ugandan regime (Museveni) for the genocide, despite the fact that it was the tutsies that mainly was murdered (one million killed). And yes, tutsies were certainly no angles and hutus were murdered too, and yes, there were large groups of tutsies that were preparing an invasion of Rwanda in Uganda, and that were funded by Museveni... But...
Why has the organization never once admitted that actually one million tutsies were killed by the hutu regime?
And, once again... Is it necessary to hide part of a truth, parts of a genocide, in order to work politically? Why was it not possible to show the bad things both sides did?
Or were only parts of the truth told, just because the LaRouchies did not want to insult their new allies, the former rulers of Rwanda, the hutus?
The organization published this report in 1997:
"Never Again! London's Genocide Against Africans. . An EIR Special Report. June, 1997Part I: London's Gameplan Leads to Nazi Genocide in Central Africa -- Introduction; London's Coordinated Military Fronts in East Africa 1990-1997, The Death Count So Far; The Chain Reactions of Catastrophe; From Their Own Evil Mouths -- British Press Outlets Advertize Plans to Recolonize Africa; The LaRouche Movement Led The Fight To Stop African Genocide. Part 2: Genocide in Africa -- Some of the Truth Comes Out -- A Holocaust is reported in the World's Press; Documentation of the Holocaust - - Reports From Around the World. Part 3: London's Raw Materials Cartel Runs the Africa Genocide -- How the British Raw Materials Cartel Put Kabila Into Power. Part 4: Who Sabotaged the Multilateral Aid Force? Why There was No Rescue Mission for Rwandan Refugees in 1996. Part 5: Nyerere's 'Kindergarten': Dar Es Salaam University. The Training of the KKK - Kabila, Kagame, and Kabuta Museveni; Bankers Radicals Protect Bush, Abet African Genocide, 'Revolution 101' at Dar Es Salaam; Museveni Embraces Fanon's Doctrine of Violence; 'Black Handlers' Jean-Paul Sartre and Jean Genet -- Nostalgia For the Mud; Sartre's Ideas on Violence; Fanon's Economic False Consciousness"
Please also read this: http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/1997/lhl_ed_03-07-97.html
Ok. Museveni might not be an angle either. But LaRouche organizers has visited Uganda privately without being thrown in jail. Would it have been possible for a a Museveni sympathizer, one that perhaps also likes george Soros, to visit a country run by a LaRouchian president? I dont think so!
CONCLUSION :
Why those fighting for freedom needs to uphold the importance of democracy and freedom of speech!
There are more examples of this double standard!
If you are a young sympathizer of LaRouche, i would recommend you to look in an old archive with copies of the EIR, NEUE SOLIDARITÄT and NEW federalist/New Solidarity. This small list of LaRouches friends in Africa can be expanded!
And dont forget: ONE KNOWS THE TRUE NATURE OF A PERSON, OR AN ORGANIZATION, BY LOOKING AT THE FRIEND THAT PERSON OR ORGANIZATION, CHOOSES TO SURROUND HIMSELF OR HERSELF WITH!
MAKE AN EXPERIMENT. Ask LaRouche why he does not critizise the lack of democracy in Zimbabwe and Sudan. I already know the answer. LaRouche would say that you have been fooled by a slander campaign run by Soros. If you are really "lucky" you would here LaRouche explain the philosophical background to "british democracy" and why it has been used to destablize nations. You would not hear anythin g negative about the LACK of democracy, but a lot of bad things told about democracy as such.
NOW MAKE ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Ask LaRouche what would have happened if the Brittish in 1775 to 1776 had treated the American revolutionaries like Bejamin Franklin and Thomas jefferson and the Adams brothers, like Mugabe treats his opponents...
Or perhaps that was what the Brittish did? Oh, and perhaps that is WHY such a revoloytion was made?!
Lyndon LaRouche has always critizised the early American founding fathers and their allies for being to soft on the allies of Great Britain (the former Colonial masters) after the war of independence was won (Aaron Burr and co...). But perhaps it was so that the founding fathers knew that democracy was so important that they let the sympathizers of the former colonial regime, those that were pro-British, talk freely! Perhaps they knew that the opposite to democracy is dictatorship? Perhaps they knew that their ideals, and USA, would die if democracy was not allowed?
Read the founding fathers for yourself, the Federalist papers is good reading, I enjoyed reading it some years ago, while I was a member.
But I asked myself the question: WHAT WOULD LYNDON LAROUCHE HAVE DONE IF HE HAD BEEN A PRESIDENT AFTER THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE? Would he have imprisoned and stopped all opponents, inluding those that likes Britain, or not? And what would he have done if Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and Samuel Adams would have rised up to say that even the opponents of the revolution have the right to speak?
Would he have thrown Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Samuel Adams in jail too?
Look at who the friends of LaRouche is in Africa. Look at what LaRouche says about democracy and look at the proposal he made for a Canadian Constitution.Look to at the way he runs the organization... ARE OPPONENTS TO LAROUCHE ENCOURAGED OR BANNED AND VILIFIED INSIDE THE ORGANIZATION?
Then look at the US constitution and compare LaRouche to the "American system" and the founding fathers and ask yourself why Lyndon H. LaRouche hates democracy and freedom of speech!
/T
Friday, April 3, 2009
A declaration of independence from Lyndon LaRouche!
In 1980 to 1981 hundreds of members in ICLC left the organization and said NO to Lyndon LaRouche. These documents show what those that left the LaRouche-cult was thinking. Perhaps they had their legitimate reasons for doing so?! (While in the organization I always heard a lot of scare stories about the resignations around 1980. It was said that these people wanted to steal money from others and get rich!
There are documents on the resignation of the EEC, the european leadership, in 2006 at this website: http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.MiscLaRouche
/T
Lyndon LaRouche and antisemitism, why I prefer not to call him antisemite!
It is important to be careful when using words, because people have a preconception when about what a word means.
If that preconception does not really fit with what others say, it might create some confusion! And that confusion is one which can backfire...
Let me just start by saying that I can understand the use of the word antisemitic when describing Lyndon LaRouche! Just look at the picture accompanying this text!
The only difference is that I mean that if one says that he is an antisemite one have to add some things, in order to make it correct. First one have to ask if the organization also is that. If Lyn is an antisemite, then the organization and its members is so too, I would say. Quite obvious since the organization IS LYN!
Then one has to add that it is not a normal kind of antisemitism. It is one that is antisemitic but still "friendly" to jews. Jews are more than welcome in this organization. There are jews as leaders. It speaks well about parts of the jewish heritage and Israel. And antisemites that are open with their antisemitism is not welcome in this organization. (I have seen Lyn and Helga openly ridicule and critizise parliamentarians (!) that were open antisemites in the classical form (race/blood=evil). It is an antisemitism that would use the protocols to get more jews to join the organization!!!
The problem
LaRouche has been compared to Father Coughlin and David Duke on the Factnet. (Well, I actually read quite a lot about Father Coughlin in 2003 when I was on the intelligence call helping out with intelligence on the thing the organization calls "synarchism". One thing that was done was to look at American antisemitism in, and around, Catholic circles. Several articles was written attacking this antisemitism.) There is a big difference. Father Coughlin did not want to recruit jews or welcome jews in his organization (to my knowledge at least). He had not leading jews in his organization and to my knowledge he did not uphold something jewish as a model for how people should live or think! Neither do Duke.
I am not saying this to defend LaRouche. When I sat down and thought about my time in the organization,before I started to post on the Factnet and before I decided to write on the blog, I decided that it is much better not to call him antisemite, and instead focus on the common features between his attacks on jews and other cultures
Why? I will tell you!
The problem is that most critics that calls Lyn an antisemite do not add an explaination, as I did. So when a jew (like Stephen Brawer in Stockholm or Phil Rubinstein perhaps) says "I am a jew and a friend of Lyn" it has an explosive effect upon people, especially youth that are CRITICAL to media and such. When the same people (youngsters!) see that the organization talks about Moses Mendelsohn and other parts of jewish culture, speaks well about Israel (not only says negative things!) and that there are dozens of jews in the leadership, and hears people in the organization say that antisemitism is wrong, then, off course, they wont listen to the critics anymore. It does not matter how many correct quotes Dennis King and others will present with LaRouches insane rantings about jews, or how often they read about Liberty Lobby and LaRouche, they will still mistrust the opponents and call their writings a lie!
The problem is that things like this makes it easy for the organization to point at other things too, as what people say that the organization is fascist or a cult. They would say. "Look at what they said about us being nazi/KKK/antisemites/racist, you KNOW that that was a lie, now what do you think it is when they say we are a cult?" The allegation that LaRouche is nazi and racist is even more dangerous. There are so many coloured people in the organization and around Lyn, and so much work being done to "save Africa", that this becomes ridiculous. Do you follow me?
My experience as an organizer
This is the experience I have as a former member. I used to speak to LYM members when I was in the org about how they were recruited, and was almost a Lym (a bit too old, though, being born 1970!). I spoke often to members that had joined BEFORE the LYM-period and the pattern was the same!
But it was also my experience as an "organizer". This is what I found was a good way to recruit people. I have actually recruited, or helped to recruit, quite a number of youngsters to the organization by simply using what the critics said and letting them compare it to what they could see!
I often let them read articles written by Dennis King and Swedish critics. I showed them some articles from when Amelia was in Lund 2001, for example, when some stupid local journalists tried to scare people from coming by saying that the organization is rightwing extremist, racist and has conections to the KKK! So stupid, so stupid! We recruited new members and contacts by the simple fact that people would ask themselves, "what the heck, this cant be true!"
Jews are viewed POSITIVELY
It is not strange that the organization welcomed a jew like Jeremiah Duggan to the conference in 2003. There are other JEWISH LYM members, you know! As well as there are muslim, atheist and catholic once, and from every culture and with all colours of skin! ALL ARE WELCOME, MORE THAN WELCOME, in the organization... As long as they adjust their culture or creed or worldview to be LaRouchians!
Were the jews welcomed or not in the 70s when you older ex-members joined? Off course they were. The same with catholics! The Catholics were welcome too! (I know that jokes about the holocaust and jokes about catholics has been circulating. I know that it has not been seen as a "good" thing to visit a church or a synagogue too much, etc... Yes! But they were still welcome. That LaRouche did not want the catholic, for example, to be too active in his or her church has got more to do with the fact that the organization is a cult!)
I would say, compare the what Lyndon treated catholics and jews in the 70s. The early writings on the sexual impotence of PSP and beoynd psychoanalysis are actually far more critical to catholic culture than jewish culture! Right?! Lyn was a catholic-basher those days. It can clearly be seen in Dope Inc, where Lyn SPEAKS about the protocols of Sion, but where he QUOTES the so called "extrem Jesuit Oath/Oath of Knights of Colombus".
But Catholics were welcome still, right? As well as jews were! It was just that LaRouche used all his manipulative skill, and all his vile methods of slanders and lies, to make the catholic AND JEWISH (and atheist, and pagan, and protestant, and american, and communist, and swedish, and german, and french, and latino, and jazzloving... etc-) member QUESTION EVERY PART OF THEIR CULTURE and replace it with LaRouches own view of it!
The use of the protocols and the attacks on LARGE PARTS jewish culture (Sionism is not judaism, was actually written by a jew, by the way!), had not only the purpose of winning the apporoval of Willis Carto and the Liberty Lobby, LaRouches friends at the time. It had an ordinary, more prosaic purpose, THAT OF MAKING THE MEMBERS OF THE CULT MORE DEPENDENT OF CULT GURU: LAROUCHE!
That is why the organizers that TRIED TO RECRIUT DUGGAN to the organization (to become one more of the jewish LYM-members), used both attacks on jews, like Rabin etc, and the examples of "positive" jewish culture, like Moses Mendelsohn!
Dont forget that the movement is a cult!
Duggan
Jeremiah Duggan was welcomed to the conference in 2003, just as every other jew that has participated (and I have met A LOT OF THEM!!!!!) has been welcomed!
Lets be blunt about it. The problem with the Duggan-campaign right now is that two extremes meet.
On one hand the people that says that Duggan must have been murdered by the vile antisemitic, almost nazi, cult because he was a jew, because antisemites dont like jews! And since the local German police does not believe it was a murder and have witnesses that saw Duggan run out in the traffic being HIT by the traffic, then the police must be a bunch of liars that in the german "nazi tradition" does not want to investigate this ritual murder of this jew!
On the other hand the TOTALITARIAN CULT that say that Duggan had "problems" but that fails/chooses not to see that the METHODS of the cult may have led to a psychological breakdown for Duggan, so that he became confused, afraid or even decided to commit suicide! In the case of Lyndon LaRouche I believe that he knows very well that the methods of "organizing" new recruits (Ego-stripping as you older ex. members would say) might lead to disasterours results, but he wishes to cover it up!
One might ask if the extreme position of the critics, and the accusations against German police, has made the police more or less willing to investigate the LaRouchecult? My guess is that it has not exactly encouraged them to investigate it!
In the view of Lyndon LaRouche, there are no races or cultures or differences between creeds... There is a "unity in the manifold", a "one in the many", a "super-asshole", a "manifold", a "transfinite", that unites it all, and that is the totalitarian CULT-GURU himself: Lyndon LaRouche! All are welcome, jews and atheists as well as Martians and extraterrestials :o) as long as all lick the fat ass of the guru!
And the lack of that understandning among some of the organizers of the Duggan event, is the wekness of the plead to investigate the death of Duggan! I just hope that some German authorities can see that there is a need to investigate it, even though!
And to all I would say, as an ex. organizer and as a person that has been around LYM. PLEASE DONT JUST CALL LAROUCHE AN ANTISEMITE WITHOUT WRITING THE EXPLAINATION I DID BEFORE!!! IF YOU DONT WANT TO EXPLAIN WHY LAROUCHE WELCOMES JEWS AND IS AN ANTISEMITE AT THE SAME TIME; THEN STOP USING THE WORD ANTISEMITE!!!
/T
PS
Some say that an evidence that LaRouche is antisemite is that he says that only a minority of the jews are "good" jews, the rest are either evil, or fooled.
I would say that the 0,1% OF ANY CULTURE, CREED and so called race, that is LaRouchians or behave as LaRouche wants them to, are the only true representatives of that culture, creed or race as LaRouche views it!
Only a small, small faction or the jews, swedes, americans, germans, catholics, atheistst, canadians, australians, etc, make up the faction of humanistic Neo-platonic Jews, Swedes, Americans, Germans, Catholics, Atheists, Canadians, Australians, etc, that LaRouche extolls and approves! And they have to agree with Lyndon!!!
That is the way a cult-leader runs the show!
And admittedly, some cultures are attacked more often than others. Jews, Russians and English has been attacked more than others. And perhaps the french!
So... To repeat! If it is antisemitism to say that only 0,1% of the jews are "good", then he is anti- EVERYTHING!!!!! And that is my point! As any clever, brilliant and EVIL cultleader would do he declares ALL exept the "saved once" to be the hostages and dupes of "hedonism", "liberalism" and "Satan"! And all can be saved, as long as that person "surrenders to the Messiah and adopts the creed (oh, excuse me, not creed, but METHOD) of that Messiah!
/T
Only a small, small faction or the jews, swedes, americans, germans, catholics, atheistst, canadians, australians, etc, make up the faction of humanistic Neo-platonic Jews, Swedes, Americans, Germans, Catholics, Atheists, Canadians, Australians, etc, that LaRouche extolls and approves! And they have to agree with Lyndon!!!
That is the way a cult-leader runs the show!
And admittedly, some cultures are attacked more often than others. Jews, Russians and English has been attacked more than others. And perhaps the french!
So... To repeat! If it is antisemitism to say that only 0,1% of the jews are "good", then he is anti- EVERYTHING!!!!! And that is my point! As any clever, brilliant and EVIL cultleader would do he declares ALL exept the "saved once" to be the hostages and dupes of "hedonism", "liberalism" and "Satan"! And all can be saved, as long as that person "surrenders to the Messiah and adopts the creed (oh, excuse me, not creed, but METHOD) of that Messiah!
/T
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
