The Historic Perpetuators of Dark Ages
I’m told that in this long diatribe that there is an attack on the “Solon”, the group of Europeans who were expelled from the Org and set up their own new think tank organization. I suppose this is another little recent trend — Webster Tarpley was rebuffed (for private consumption at least), as you recall. It is a tough slog to wade through this crap, but I guess that’s why we have people like “sancho“:
Until the mid-1960s, my public political role as such was all but rarely marginal, but the developments of that twenty-odd-year interval until that period of my more active role in economics-rooted political-intelligence activity since the mid-1960s, have come to show that my political commitment of the 1946-1965 interval, has turned out to have been necessary preparation for my increasingly significant role in becoming a prominent intelligence specialist during the course of the 1966-2009 interval to date.[9]
Since 1966, my associates and I have often taken abuse from those against whom I have fought for that cause. This abuse has included betrayal by those who, after they had descended to levels below the rank of former friends, went over to the adversary camp, out of such apparent motives as fear, greed, pleasure in perversion, or a combination from among such impulses—although I had done actually nothing of which anyone could justly say I should be ashamed in carrying forward the intention which I had adopted in Spring 1946. Such defections are an effect, a frictional cost, to be expected in any really serious political effort.
I can only suggest that he’s talking to himself in a job of rationalizations.  But let’s play a game with this one. Skip past the meandering preamble to the text and spell out the names. This “essay” is like a thousand before it, and — at his advanced age I’ll say like fifty more to come. The Lyndon Larouche Organization has identified the following as the Agents in history who have sent the World into Dark Ages in the past, and who are now bent on sending the World into a New Dark Age. Against them does the Larouche Organization pick up their swords and battle:
British asset and Venetian financier, veteran of London’s “Young Turk” operation, Volpi di Misurata,
official British fascists’ spin-off from the Fabian Society of H.G. Wells and his ilk, John Maynard Keynes, Britain’s Winston Churchill and Italian protege Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson second-generation products of the British-directed Confederacy’s attempt to destroy the U.S.A, both the Bank of England’s Montagu Norman and Brown Brothers, Harriman), who were leading members of the same pack from among leading Anglo-American backers of fascism, President Harry Truman, [and] the lurking fascist circles inside the U.S.A., as they have been since the riots of 1968 and the election of President Richard Nixon, until now, which has been a principal factor in world politics since the interval of London’s appointment of Napoleon III, as it had been when the British Foreign Office’s Lord Palmerston inserted his asset, as the case of former Prime Minister Tony Blair suggests that intention, such monstrously evil men and women as George Soros and Soros’s crony, Lord Malloch Brown, the historically pro-fascist American Enterprise Institute, Amity Shlaes, in the chatter around the pair of George Shult’z frankly fascist crony Felix Rohatyn-linked Senator Christopher Dodd and Representative Barney Frank, the world’s currently biggest and most evil dope pusher, Lord Malloch Brown’s associate, the global drug-trafficker George Soros, similar to those of the, similarly, once triumphalist, Fourteenth-Century, Lucca-based, Lombard banking-house of Bardi, would happen as did the doom of the Don Giovanni of the Mozart opera, denunciation of the frauds which underlie the specific form of that same reductionist method of Paolo Sarpi which permeates and underlies the scientific fraud which underlies all of the doctrine of both Sarpi follower Rene Descarte, in turn, is echoed by that similarly a-prioristic, mechanistic echo of Euclid, which permeates the argument of the Eighteenth-century empiricists such as Abraham de Moivre, Jean D’Alembert, Leonhard Euler, Joseph Lagrange, and, also, by such typical Nineteenth Century science-misfortunates as the devotees of Pierre-Simon Laplace, Augustin Cauchy, Rudolf Clausius, and Hermann Grassmann. The Eighteenth-century empiricists and their followers, included such as David Hume, Adam Smith, and Immanuel Kant, and, in the Nineteenth Century, Adam Smith’s avowed devotee, Karl Marx,contrary to the damaged Bertrand Russell creations John von Neumann and Professor Norbert Wiener,  the discovery which Issac Newton merely asserted, fraudulently, to be his own, a fraud which they (e.g., the Cartesians) continued, the U.S.A. can blame Arthur Burns and his (actually) pro-fascist miscreation, Milton Friedman, the effect of the “Frankfurt School” corruption by what was known in Europe as the post-World War II Congress of Cultural Freedom, the existentialism of Martin Heidegger et al.,notable practical effect of this existentialist cult of [Martin] Heidegger, [Hannah] Arendt, et al., the malthusian legacy of Giammaria Ortes, Philip of Macedon and his Greek advisors, the influence of the systemic scientific incompetence of that follower of Paolo Sarpi known as Rene Descartes, impact of France’s Louis XIV,  leading to the replacement of the deceased Philip by Alexander the Great, had highly relevant, historically and strategically, links, by family ties, to the ancient maritime culture of a Cyrenaica which would be associated later with the great Eratosthenes, Prince of Wales Edward Albert’s circles the later Edward VII, Secretary Lansing, Lord Palmerston’s backing of his London-created, Confederacy puppet,Prince Edward Albert, recruiting the Mikado, assassination of U.S. President McKinley, the assassination which made possible the Presidencies of two relevant sympathizers of the British-created Confederacy, Bertrand Russell’s continuation of H.G. Wells’ design for nuclear warfare, against the image of the 1782 victory of the United States in defeating Lord Shelburne’s, Jeremy Bentham’s, and American traitor Aaron Burr’s British Empire, especially since the installation of the London-oriented [Mikhail] Gorbachev regime, operation had been steered by a leader of the Venetian intelligence service, Francesco Zorzi (aka Giorgi), an avowed enemy of the work of Nicholas of Cusa, operating within England under the cloak of marriage councillor to King Henry VIII, in concert with a Plantagenet Pretender (Cardinal Pole), Thomas Cromwell, et al., taken over, on a grander scale, by the founder of modern Liberalism, the Venetian Paolo Sarpi, with the assistance of his lackey, the hoaxster Galileo Galilei, to prevent the continuation of a valid form of modern science, throw-back, in purpose, to the case of the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound, Rene Descartes, and of such empiricists as Abraham de Moivre, [Jean Le Rondt] D’Alembert, and Leonhard Euler, imposed the revived lunacy of the medieval William of Ockham, form of moral depravity known as modern Liberalism, which would later culminate in the corruption expressed by Professor Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann, Edward Gibbon, Marx, all contemporary adversaries of scientific truth, such as Britain’s Duke of Edinburgh today, who heads the anti-humanist World Wildlife Fund, Euclid, followers of the British Haileybury School, Fabian Society, avowed Satanist Aleister Crowley, Thomas Huxley who had launched H.G. Wells, Aldous and Julian, and also a third case, George Orwell,  was the circle which created the cult of LSD and kindred concoctions, The cult of “information theory” was a notable offshoot of Russell’s savagely anti-humanist Principia Mathematica hoax, were the cases of the Eighteenth-century empiricists who followed the leadership of Abbé Antonio Conti and Voltaire, such as Abraham de Moivre, D’Alembert, Leonhard Euler, and Joseph Lagrange, and the latters’ Nineteenth-century devotees, such as Laplace, Augustin Cauchy, Rudolf Clausius, and Hermann Grassmann. The mechanistic cult of Ernst Mach and the more radical, the Newton cult, the fraudulent notion of a “law of entropy” proposed by such as Rudolf Clausius, Hermann Grassmann, and Kelvin, The person who believes in “human ecology,” Lord Shelburne,  King George I,
, projected scheme of Philip of Macedon, from (most notably) Peter the Great; and, and world empires of the maritime type illustrated by the attempt, ultimately unsuccessful, by Pericles of Athens’ launching of the Peloponnesian War; the priests of the Mithra cult and the Octavian who would be later renamed Augustus Caesar.Â
Got that? Now, against them the Larouche Organization is working the tradition of a number of sources of light that have battled these Dark Age proponents. I would have to slug through this thing again to fill in more names (specifically cited in this “essay”), but right of the top we have:
Franklin Roosevelt, Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, Aristotle, Abraham Lincoln, Henry C. Carey, Nicholas of Cusa, Aeschylus, Cleopatra, Marc Antony, and Percy Shelley.
On a Jehovah’s Witness board, the convergence of prophecies brings them to the writings of Larouche, and here is a matter that will not die:
Mr Larouche famed for his impressive private intellegence network has got me wondering if his people scan the web for references to thier master. Laroche has been compared to Don Quixote on this DB, not least a few times by myself. An then his people release this cartoon with a Larouchian Quixote.
Actually a bit surprising, as a Quixote would suggest a “Tilting at Windmills” that minimizes the World Historic Role in defeating Paolo Sarpi on behalf of Abraham Lincoln. But the Larouche Organization might want to get to work in trying to get “Watchman”. A funny note there:
The thing I find interesting is that usually during the question and answer session there are always some cowardly politicians who send in an anonymous question or two.
For this little parlor game I always cite “An anonymous question from a Midwestern Republican Senator” querying about Iraq, an obvious reference to Senator Chuck Hagel — unidentified in part because it was an item of fiction. A week or so later I see them release a “news” item on some speech of Chuck Hagel with comments from Larouche suggesting that Chuck Hagel has endorsed the Larouche Plan in Iraq — another Lie — I was paying attention in 2003, one key tenet of the “Larouche Plan” was that the thing MUST be named “The Larouche Plan” — which was something that Chuck Hagel was not proposing.
There are almost certainly countless examples like this, but I’m sort of not paying enough attention.
Apparently Larouche once proposed a Constitution for the nation of Canada. Dig?Â
1)Â The free press would face censorship.
Ҥ5.4 Rights of Persons and Associations
The development and propagation of ideas other than irrational-hedonistic incitements is the subsumed purpose of society’s activity from day to day, together with the freedom to practice attempted contributions to the improvement of society and individual condition according to moral forms of ideas. The principle governing this is efficiently illustrated by the proper view of the meaning of “free press.” Freedom to communicate ideas is constrained by the law’s abhorrence of irrational hedonistic incitements and by the authority of truth. Any statement or interpretation of fact which is publicised orally after being contrived in good faith and promulgated to some morally acceptable purpose must be a privileged ‘ statement under the law, unless it be clearly defined as irrationalist-hedonistic incitement. This must be the only standard for proceedings in libel and slander under statute and civil law. Association is governed by the same principle of privilege as public communication, on condition that the practice of that association is not criminal under law, nor a violation of constitutional law.”
2) §5.3 Morality & Law
“The criminal mind and insanity are both expressions of “infantile regression.” The criminal is the irrational hedonist who asserts actions against the law in defiance of the lawful requirement that the person order behaviour by intent to submit to dictate of a rational conscience. The insane person is one who has disassociated his or her consciousness from significant aspects of rationally ordered reality in order to assert in practice the impulses of an infantile irrational hedonism. Both expressions of irrational hedonism are to be denounced as immorality, and their effects to be contained efficiently with aid of humane efforts to rid the person afflicted with infantile regressions of domination by infantile, or by irrational hedonistic impulses and beliefs.
(…)
There is no right to expression of or cultivation of irrationalist hedonism in a constitutional republic.”
Read also this: §5.4 Rights of Persons and Associations
“The development and propagation of ideas other than irrational-hedonistic incitements is the subsumed purpose of society’s activity from day to day, together with the freedom to practice attempted contributions to the improvement of society and individual condition according to moral forms of ideas.”
Well, I’ll take a look at it sooner or later, I guess. Surely the highlights were taken out of context and if I were to parse on through it I’d see that they’re mitigated and explained into a much more humanistic offering. For the good people of Canada. I may have to take down my poster of Issac Newton and burn my membership to the National Wildlife Fund in anticipation of the Larouche takeover, after they claim Canada the United States will be only a matter of time.
I jumped in on Thursday and posted on new wikipedia material, the discussion pages at wikipedia providing the most naked look at what’s in the org’s head at any given moment.   (If there were a central hub I’d link to it on the sidebar, as it is one of the four most important online souces for Larouchian undertakings — I suppose the constant renewed and renamed sock puppet duo violates “Not a Battleground”, but wikipedia by now has to understand that every interested party in every topic views this site as a “battle-ground” — more secretive and tightly vested the more … for a good battle ground viewing, see the discussion in the entry for “Prohibition Party“). On Thursday I was not aware that the Kenneth Kronberg page has been reignited — an undertaking which needs to be understood in the context of the two bizarre interjections of the “Crime of Molly Kronberg” into unrelated items relating to a HBPA failure and Ted Stevens conviction and in context of an internal memo calling on the membership to not write bad checks.  It all starts with this bit of wikedness:
This article appears to be written mainly by Molly Kronberg, and serves as a platform for her to scapegoat the Larouche group for her husband’s death, while exonerating herself.
Skip to the end here and this a bizarre statement:
It is worth noting that Hexham knew about the Avi Klein article no later than May 16, 2007[17], six months before it was published. Keinehexen (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
If I had to bet I’d say that Keinehexen did too.  I mean, Who didn’t?Â
(Again I ponder that Avi Klein does not deserve to be perpetually associated with Larouche for writing one feature. Well, hopefully he’ll come up with something of either broad interest or intense interest to a small group [such as this one] that wills supplant it — currently the google ordering contest between the “Earnest, Young, and Owing” and “Publish and Perish” is on the latter — the previous time I checked it was on “Earnest, Young, and Owing“. I’ll continue to check on this whenever I’m edged over to discussion of Avi Klein.)
Well, that’s enough.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
good one, i am speechless
have a great sunday!
going to see watchmen tomorrow – you like the movie? i haven’t read the book in quite awhile but liked gibbons’ art a lot – moore is hit or miss for me
March 8th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I am not planning on watching “Watchmen”, though I likely will end up seeing it eventually through a form of pop cultural osmosis. The comic reads like it would be unadaptable to film, and all the reviews that I trust are coming out that the movie does not prove that assessment wrong.
March 8th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
yeah, i agree – they can’t put the whole comic into a film because that would take maybe six hours, maybe longer
rotten tomatoes has a lot of reviews up
it isn’t a movie that people can just walk into without knowing some of the back story but it did make $55 million, or something, this weekend
for comic fanatics like me knowing that moore wanted to use the Charlton heroes but DC wouldn’t let him kill them off is good but the stuff left out of the movie is not good – maybe there is a director’s cut coming?
one reviewer said it is “long, dull and sinks under the weight of its reverence for the original.” but what does he know?
i just hope there is no sequel
March 9th, 2009 at 4:11 am
apparently FACTnet is going to start charging people to post so a few of the people who claim to have been with the ICLC are moaning about it and bidding the place “farewell”
“I think paying for posting is bad news and goes against factnet’s purposes. It will eliminate casual posters and I doubt recent dropouts from the lar cult or LYMsters would ever pay to post here. So, this will become a club of ‘unhappy few’…”
i’d suggest they always were unhappy with the way their lives were going but that’s just little old me and i am just one guy with an opinion
i have an idea – you could invite them over here and then you’d have 14 people reading the site instead of 7
just kidding
😉
March 9th, 2009 at 6:51 am
they’re getting a little antsy over at FACTnet
rachel where can i go now for the help you promised once larouche dies?
lol
“I don’t mind paying, that’s not the point. The point is that it will limit the number of posters and this will become a club of ‘unhappy few’, which means the end of this discussion board. Posters who pay will ‘publish’ their thoughts here. instead of having a genuine ‘discussion board’ this will become a collection of Blogs. For a discussion, we need contradictions (like I had with European – thanks guy!), this is what makes it interesting. Those who will pay will be grumpy old ex-LCrs who will agree on how bad LaRouche is. Boring.”
i wonder how many of those clowns are really ex-LC members and how many are just bored people, who waste time posting nonsense on FACTnet
i love the marxist contingent – they are the best yet!
damn, i used to love reading all that gossip – now what?
March 9th, 2009 at 7:36 am
i love the marxist contingent – they are the best yet!
Yeah, yeah, I know. You’re more of a Marxian, right? — the “Marxian” concepts laid out by Larouche in the early 70s. Sheesh.
Hm. It’ll, it would appear, edge over to “Larouche Planet”, and these matters will readjust. Nothing I’m entirely worried about. The Campaign Continues. I’ll have to read “Factnet’s Evolving Mission” to see what I suspect is a rationalization for the new policy to an “evolving mission”, ie: old “mission” as understood would require an allowance for people not inclined to pay (ie: antagonistic members of cults) and some people destitute enough not to even be able to afford the admittedly rather meager amount (just getting out of a cult and not on their feet as of yet); new mission being –?
According to the Larouche Organization, in the internal memo directed at the LYMers, the one that referenced “Robert Beltran stalker”‘s Kherus, ( http://larouchewatch.blogspot.com/ ), the “John Train” connected Dennis King, and the “American Family Association” funded Factnet — Factnet funded by the “American Family Association”, the org says? Always skittish their funding, I guess. Waiting for the LPAC press release on how the American Family Association revoked their funding.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:53 am
me a marxist? lol, nope – i am just a free thinking, fun-loving regular guy justin
i remember a woman stalking beltran – is that the one you’re talking about? i was curious why she would even care what beltran is doing?
is the AFA funding FACTnet? if they are they are just adjusting things by making people “pay to play” and yeah things can move over to larouche planet but it won’t be the same – if the AFA is changing things all i can say is to quote tom waits from “big joe and phantom 309” > “times are tough all over”
king and train connection > yep there is one
howie g (somehow i ended up there by some link has some weird stuff on his blog)
bowie dressed up in full ziggy starbust glam rock attire singing changes but with different lyrics:
“When I saw the auto industry;
Seem to disappear;
LaRouche told you it is the system;
No easy money gonna work;
Let’s have bankruptcy reorganization;
That the first step to sanity;
Real estate bubble, and the homeless;
I think they know what they’re going through;
Chhhhh- Changes”
he does this with elton john, the beatles, grace slick, the who, clapton, and bon jovi – well, i like bowie, the beatles and the who but the others not too much and bon jovi not at all – howie is just creative i guess and seems happy unlike the malcontents at FACTnet that are arguing with each other and splintering
well, off to the movies!
have a good day
March 9th, 2009 at 11:01 am
me a marxist? lol, nope – i am just
Hm. We’ve long ago established that you don’t read particularly carefully.
i remember a woman stalking beltran – is that the one you’re talking about?
If that was true, the item I’m referring to would have been a rather obnoxious item of innuendo on the Org’s part.
is the AFA funding FACTnet?
That would have been just an item from Larouche’s fantasy grab bag, presumably. I always held out the possibility that they might have given a donation at some time or something like that just to give some kernal of truth to that particular Larouche fantasy, in their game of “Connecto”.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Jeez, rev, between your wife and your garden and your comics and your music and your free-thinking, why would you need help when Lyn dies?
Will you feel that your life has become empty and rudderless?
Hard to believe, with the all the cool things you manage to do while being in the org and an insider and knowing everyone so well and all.
Cheer up–you can always hang around the NEC. That should be good for a laugh, for awhile at least.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
nah, i don’t believe they were playing connecto
the kernel of truth is what larouche said it was and like i said, times are tough all over
FACTnet people in the larouche section are what they say they are: “the unhappy few” who have a goal to save the people from larouche or something like that and it will end up where the “duggan case” is ending up = six feet under
there was a woman stalking beltran on the web and i remember reading her posts so that is 100% true
i just think it is funny how things play out in life
March 10th, 2009 at 6:32 am
justin i think you mean to say the AMERICAN FAMILY FOUNDATION and not the AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION no?
just helping you out
the donations of the AFF have been documented
take care
March 10th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
rachel,
who said i would need help when lyn kicks the bucket? i did? i must have forgotten that or you made it up
my life is rich and full so no i won’t feel empty at all – everyone dies rachel right? some die young, like duggan, and some die old, like larouche
you find me hard to believe? why? just because i know current music, have money, read comic books? don’t be silly – the larouche organizations allow total freedom – you’re showing your bitterness and hatred again
i suggest it is you that needs the help
cheer up? i am always cheerful rachel and as for hanging around the NEC i already do that and have for decades
rachel you’ve been out of the loop for so long
curious – why don’t you tell me your story or is that a secret? i don’t need your real name and location but would be very interested in hearing about your sad adventures with the ICLC
have fun
March 10th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Yep, it would look like something the “American Family Foundation” would donate money to. Particularly since they’ve changed their name to “International Cultic Studies Association”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Cultic_Studies_Association
Wait, wait. Scaife! That boogey-man! My god, won’t that man stoop to nothing to stop the Clinton — Larouche — FDR Juggernaut, by donating money into a organization which has donated some money into an organization which has offered up a forum which tangeantally has published such SLANDEROUS accusations to destroy the Clinton — Larouche — FDR Juggernaut (but is more broadly known for skirmeshes regarding Scientology).
I need some more dots and then I can connect even more dots. The comic strip Get Fuzzy is apparently all aboard the “Larouche” bandwagon:
http://comics.com/get_fuzzy/2009-03-10/
March 10th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
rachel,
who said i would need help when lyn kicks the bucket? i did? i must have forgotten that or you made it up–
Hmm, that’s strange, Revenire, because you said it a couple of posts up.
And, dear boy, if you hadn’t said it, we all might have inferred it anyhow.
As to my adventures in the ICLC, they were many, varied, some hilarious, some less so, but despite all Lyn’s absurdities, I have concluded that the most significant thing about him is that he’s not too bright. And can that ever be a pain when he’s the genius running your universe.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
then why, dear rachel, did you spend so long in the ICLC? you have an answer for the years you wasted chasing something you found wasn’t there rachel? why should anyone believe you? if you joined a cult and were that messed up mentally to join a cult why would anyone take you seriously now? because you left a cult that you willingly joined? what does that make you? sane? insane? i think you can’t explain your relationship with the ICLC so you dismiss it with posts like that last paragraph of yours – why was larouche running your universe? did he have you under his mental control rachel? and now you’re free, like all the FACTnet boys and girls?
and, rachel my lovely pet, you left out something in your reading of my post:
“rachel where can i go now for the help you promised once larouche dies?
“lol”
i was being sarcastic and you knew it – you certainly didn’t take it seriously unless you’re really crazy and you might be for all i know
“we all might have inferred it anyhow” lol okay rachel, whatever you say baby
tell me, why would i ask you for anything?
FACTnet is breaking apart into arguments, go look
it is funny & what a shame too (i sure hope none of them jump and if they do it is out of a one story building and not into traffic)
————————————————————————————–
earnest_one
Member
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 99
The “Tone” On This Board
Perhaps I am wrong, but in recent days I have noticed a slightly different “tone” on this board, with a bit of harping — certainly about justified and reasonable issues, but still somewhat disconcerting, at least to me.
Perhaps the root cause is the anticipated change in site rules and the various positions of people: Final summary statements, whether they will stay or go or… whatever. Perhaps it is something else.
Here I do not wish to pick out any particular poster or any particular issue.
I simply am mildly saddened by these developments and hope that I am mistaken — that the change of tone I note/feel is illusory or, if real, will vanish soon.
Can we all just get along? And/or be slightly less accusatory?
Everyone is under tremendous pressure these days so anything untoward is understandable.
I simply hope that I am wrong and/or that the tone is readjusted somewhat, not in terms of base frequencies but in terms of harmonic content — the ratio of harmony versus dissonance over the FULL spectrum.
Peter Tennenbaum March 10, 2009
March 10th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
justin yes the american family foundation (aff) is the one not the other you mentioned but your research is getting sloppy lately – i am wondering if you actually believe the FACTnet stuff
no need to answer me
the aff has some rather interesting links on its site > many so-called christian groups, and fundamentalist kooks as well, quite interesting
i guess you didn’t do much research there either
and yeah, the scaife family was involved in funding them as were the mellons – what a surprise – two fine american families that merged into the mellon-scaife family
scaife’s newspapers did accuse the clinton’s of being behind the death of vince foster – now that is a conspiracy theory isn’t it? this is getting really fun
scaife supported nixon – another great accomplishment isn’t it?
scaife also was an enthusiastic backer of “the american spectator” and this led to the “arkansas project” which told a big whopper didn’t they? they said bill clinton ran cocaine out of the mena military airport – but that was really ollie north as we exposed when nancy ran against ollie (poor ollie nearly had a nervous breakdown) – so scaife is really into conspiracies isn’t he? yes, he is without a doubt
all public knowledge and also public knowledge that larouche and his associates exposed north as a drug pusher and exposed scaife as an enemy of the USA so what does that make the aff? skip the larouche angle – this scaife said clinton sold drugs out of the mena military airport and that wild piece of conspiracy fantasy is what you defend? lol okay
scaife also gave $$$ to that fine GOP man rick santorum – the ultra-conservative nutcase
then there is the heritage foundation (again, we have scaife as the major backer), a right-wing nut group that promotes war and genocide but again justin – you didn’t do your homework here at all
i also seem to remember a louis jolyon west and remember he’s dead now, a shame he died but i am sure he jumped off of something
please don’t feel as if you need to reply my friend – i’ve pretty much done a good job on your latest challenge and can’t wait for the next one
March 10th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Dear Revenire–
Silly boy, I’m not too worried about whether you believe me or not.
Oh, I get it–you’re talking about OTHER people believing me. Well, thanks for asking, but I think I’ve got that covered.
Appreciate the concern, tho’.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:15 am
And then Scaife had to do the “Irony” and endorse Hillary Clinton for President.
i am wondering if you actually believe the FACTnet stuff
Seeing as you’ve just validated “the FACTNet stuff” by asserting the “Foundation”, you didn’t just do anything to disabuse me. Not that I need or seek that validation. But Dianne Bettag made a similar mistake.
i’ve pretty much done a good job on your latest challenge
Champion in your own mind, and that’s all that matters. In retrospect, I am happy I chose that name for this category (which grew into a blog within a blog): “Larouche Challenge”. Ambiguous the name has been, and oh boy has the “Larouche Challenge” evolved.
FACTnet is breaking apart into arguments, go look
it is funny & what a shame too (i sure hope none of them jump and if they do it is out of a one story building and not into traffic)
Eh. “Earnest One” sees it differently than I. They’re (“we’re” I suppose) not coordinated — you know that, right? There’s been a healthy amount of friction since January, which has generally been helpful to the process. To break down the points of contention which may have verged into “accusatory”: he is wrong with his use of the word “bitch”; I am a bit leary of making too many parallels with pre-classical Greek society and am not going to be turning there to gain knowledge about Lycurgus — but that resolved itself in good humor; the words “Cheapskate” and “Free-loader” may be a bit harsh, I suppose — that change does alter factnet in some manners subtle and not so subtle, best understood as a bit of a last resort.
(i sure hope none of them jump and if they do it is out of a one story building and not into traffic)
Keep piling those up. Just… keep piling those up.
Mental note: Compile “Earnest One”‘s story, as neither “LarouchePlanet” or King have yet.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:12 am
rachel answer the question: what kept you in a cult for years?
how could larouche have run your universe?
how long in the LC?
“other” people rachel? other people who were in a cult believe you? what credibility do they have with anyone? what have you accomplished?
you won’t answer…
you’re way too “easy”
March 11th, 2009 at 8:13 am
justin my friend, time for “revenire” to saunter off now because you can’t really “bring it on” can you?
have fun with your blog
March 11th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
meh.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
I have enough items of curiosity for the next installment of “The Larouche Challenge” that I’ll get this wrap-up out of the way here, a bit more expansively than if I were to insert in into a blog entry:
I guess I stuck with revenire this time out to the end — which always comes just after the comment about everyone jumping off of bridges and/or buildings. If you want to play it like this (which I don’t know why anyone would want to “play it”), I guess that was a tactical decision on my part. As always, revenire leaves “triumphantly”, whatever that means.
I guess revenire thinks he has something with my mistaking the “American Family Foundation” with the “American Family Association” in a briefing memo from the Summer of 07. An unremarkable mistake, as I have every reason to have heard of the former (Hell! In my childhood James Dobson would frequently purchase the back pages of the Sunday funnies and inveigh against the Media’s promotion of Homosexuality and other sins) and no reason to have heard of the latter.
And the central problem with the attachment of the AFF remains. It is notable that the Church of Scientology makes the same connection in its literature and in its legal threatening — notable because the Church of Scientology would actually have a far greater case, since Scientology dominates the website and can fairly be called the #1 focus. (Revenire said as much several times in his latest stay.) That is one hell of an indirect way for Scaife to slander Larouche.
Revenire tosses in some irrelevant items from Larouche’s marginally more significant days of the 80s — back when the organization had enough intelligence connections and talent to peck at the conspiracy of Iran Contra. I don’t really want to look back at what the org produced here, except that I know by now the basic structure of any long form report: if near the top they produce something of significance, it will dissipate as the report endevors to “peel away the onion” of the grand historic Conspiracy and stick it in its wider Venetian Conspiracy of plotting the Dark Ages of Humanity.
But I don’t know what this has to do with the price of tea in China (the absurdity of the Scaife to American Family Foundation to Facnet to Larouche board connection), even if I do know what revenire wants to convey to me (“World Historic Person”). It appears that “Howie G” read these revenire conversings before posting at the new Larouche-related blog: http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.com/2009/03/strange-god-indeed.html?showComment=1236812340000#c7919024153116307110 — unless the particular name of Scaife is rampant over every other figure of conspiracy in the org right now, but I see no evidence for that idea.
Yes, I recognize the dynamics he wanted to impart here in his “game” — hint: I’m rather unimportant. His query to “rachel holmes” seems to be going around — asked at that ex-member’s blog I just posted — the answer I understand with the complexities of psychology on one hand and human relations on the other. But that question pales to the more pertinent question of “How can you defend and rationalize all that, and why are you still involved with all that?”