Posted on Sunday

Anonymous

Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 4:51 am:

I know for fact that the La Rouche group is a cult. I went to their meeting, read their stuff, and heard their speeches. It all sounds very scary indeed. There was a lot of sensationalist propaganda and this big talk about how "LaRouche is the only way" and that he was the answer to our problems. It seems like they almost made the guy into a god or something.

They pressured me into forking over 40 bucks to buy some dumb book, and they wanted to take me out to a camping retreat, but I refused, cause I
could tell things were getting pretty weird.

When I got home, my father said "LaRouche is a cult we knew about back in high school." From that moment on I swore never to return.

Tom

Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 6:29 pm:

Wow! I just found this site, and I can't remember the last time I perused such loads of crap. I've known Mr. LaRouche for years, and have studied his thinking intensively. To claim, for example, that LaRouche has no coherent policy is the height of absurdity. To bring in the tired slanders of ex-High Times author Dennis King is like digging in the sewer. And to call LaRouche a fascist defies every standard of reason.

Anyone willing to turn off the T.V. and read LaRouche will laugh along with me. Let me just put it in a nutshell: LaRouche is an "American System" economist who consciously lives in the tradition of Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Abraham Lincoln. (Remember them?) His policy is the creation of a new monetary system, not unlike the now defunct Bretton Woods monetary system created in 1944 under the leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The purpose of this new monetary system is to rapidly, and massively expand credit for large-scale infrastructure projects and technological development projects to rebuild and expand our teetering economy worldwide. It should be obvious to anyone that millions of hungry and disease-threatened people living short, unhappy lives in Africa, for example (remember that place?), would be delighted if they had Mr. LaRouche as the President of the United States. Need anyone be reminded that President Kennedy was loved all over the world because he had similar intentions?

The main obstacle to this goal is the rampant pessimism and ignorance of a population conditioned by decades of bogus environmentalism, and counter-cultural decadence that began no later than the assassination of Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, not to mention the more recent, disturbing, and absurd character-assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the United States' greatest President. Hence, the daily activity of LaRouche activists consists of organizing people, primarily young people (many of whom are still open-minded), to quit the cult of popular opinion, and renew the pursuit of truth which is the birthright of every human being on this planet. And this means work!

For example, as I write, from here in the Los Angeles headquarters of the LaRouche movement, there is a large group of young people learning to sing! Not that rap or heavy metal crap, but classical lieder, using bel canto methods. A good friend of Mr. LaRouche, Maestro Briano, one of the great voice coaches from Mexico, is here to lead the fun. For me, it is a joy to see the cheerful spark of optimism brightening the eyes of young people in the process of discovering the beauty of their own voice. Only weeks ago--and in some cases only days ago--many of these students had no future. I ask you to imagine seeing even gangbangers (now ex-gangbangers), preparing themselves to competently sing the most beautiful music ever composed.

I've been part of this movement for quite some time, and when I read the stuff that people write about LaRouche, and compare it to what I KNOW to be true, I wonder if it is all in vain. Five seconds later, I rememeber that I too was once a victim.

Anonymous

Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 6:45 pm:

Tom - you're an ass!

Anonymous

Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 7:40 pm:

Tom, I'll net you've never read the book "Lyndon Larouche and the New American Fascism".

I'll bet almost nobody in the LaRouche movement has. None of the LaRouche kids I spoke to had read it. They were all quick to denounce it, and say the author was a drug addict, etc, and make every possible excuse for not having read it.

I finally challenged one of the young woman I met at school to read it in exchange for me reading LaRouch's book. Over the very strong objections of her fellow LaRouchites, she read it. When I first challenged her, her friends actually started to question her character and loyalty for even considering it. She finally got mad enough at their pressure to take my challenge and read the book for herself.

She was out of the LaRouche movement by the end of the week. When she started discussing what she had read with other LaRouchites and informing them of the facts in the book, she was labeled "brainwashed" and kicked out.

Tom

Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 10:33 pm:

I read Dennis King's book. It's a ridiculous crock of shit. Dennis King definitely smoked too much dope.

Have you ever read LaRouche? Can you even name any of the books he wrote?

I KNOW Mr. LaRouche. I've talked to him in his own house on several occasions. I consider that a privilege. I am proud, just as those who struggled with Martin Luther King are proud, even though he was the victim of persistent, viscious slanders throughout the entirety of the Civil Rights Movement.

When I was new to LaRouche's movement, I felt I was given a mission to do something noble with my life, and I was grateful. For quite some time, however, I had some reservations, because I did not know LaRouche personally. I feared that if I were to meet him, I would somehow be disappointed. In retrospect, I realize those fears were the consequence of the existential nightmare in which you and I were raised.

When I finally met Mr. LaRouche, however, I felt I was talking to a true friend. He was easy-going, kind, cheerful, and indescribeably bright. I have no problem asserting that he is the greatest thinker alive today, and I am sure there are countless people from all over the world who agree.

If I were alive in 400 B.C., and I could live my life any way I choose, I would join Plato in the struggle to give man the gift of philosophy. If I were alive in 1776 A.D., I would join Franklin and Washington in the struggle to give man the gift of freedom. But since I am alive today, I choose to join LaRouche in the struggle to finally make these gifts available to everyone.

Now, If you are capable of understanding that, and choose to join Dennis King instead, well, I pity you. You are truly irrelevant.

Tom

Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 1:48 pm:

Our plan is to campaign for Gray Davis. That's right, Gray Davis. This is serious folks. Anyone who ever doubted LaRouche's analysis of the economic crisis we face should just come to grips with the crisis we face in California. The danger here is the kind of softening of the population you get that leads to REAL fascism.

There are a handful of key people in and around the California state government who are working with some of LaRouche's "henchmen", even if they find it distasteful. They might not like it any more than you do, but we can put the organizers out on the streets like no one else.

The solution has to be something like the kind of thing FDR provided with the New Deal. We're all going look like a bunch idiots if we can't pull together on that one.

Chaim

Posted on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 1:24 pm:

Tom,

Certainly:

When I left, I wrote a note specifying my reason for departure. In it, I outlined why it was I felt I needed to leave. It largely centered around the organization's response to the 9-11 attacks.

In the months since, I have come to other reasoons why I needed to leave, but the one I mention above was the first and most immediate one that came up, and the one that eventually caused me to part ways wiith the group.

It, in itself, esxposed some things about the group to me that I was not willingg to go along with for much longer, which is why I left.

Whhen discussing my departure from the group, would it not make more sense to say "Chaim left because he found that he didn't totally agree with some of the thing that Lyn was doing, and found that he could not work for him anymore"?

That would make sense, but it's not what the organization does. Instead they say that someone was "blocked" or "impotent" or had, as you say, "confused parents."

I didn't even discuss with them my decision to leave until it was already made.

When I mention, below, the "possible negative light," I mean that protecting LaRouche's image and infallibility is one of the top priorities of his movement. It's betteer to use words like "blocked" or "confused" than to simply say "Chaim didn't like the strong focus on fundraising right after 9-11" or "chaim didn't like the way that Lyn and his organization regarded people mourning in the aftermath of 9-11" or "Chaim decided that the organization was a cult, and wanted no more part of it," That highlights a possible problem with the organization or Lyn, instead of highlighting a problem with me (or my parents) solely.

I don't think it would be productive for you and I to discuss the attributes of a cult and whether LaRouche fits the bill or not, but I hope that I get across what I meant.

Sorry for any typo's. It's damn cold this morning.

-Chaim

Tom

Posted on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 9:36 pm:

Chaim,

I accept this answer, but even if it is wholly honest, it reeks of a ‘little me’ problem. Nothing you have written goes beyond the expression of mere feeling. On the other hand, Chaim, I have enough confidence in your intelligence to know, that you know, that we in the LaRouche organization are committed to the Good above all else. The claim that “protecting LaRouche's image and infallibility is one of the top priorities of his movement,” is a bit, let us say, ridiculous. The only protection Lyn needs is physical protection from his enemies, all of whom are demonstrably committed to something less than the Good.

The fact is, as you know, Lyn has a first-class mind, and he has repeatedly demonstrated that his ability to know things is unequalled. That quality of leadership commands the respect of fellow truth-seekers, particularly those who decide to act for the Good.

The real issue here is a question of identity. In my opinion, your identity is diminished. If I am wrong, you must demonstrate the nature of my error.

On a personal note, let me give you my opinion of Chaim. Chaim was one of the brightest kids I’ve met. He demonstrated very strong leadership capabilities, but lacked the maturity to temper his enthusiasm. He organized with so much energy and force that he pushed the boundaries of his physical capabilities. That’s when he got that nasty flu, or whatever it was.

Instead of sneaking away from the battle and constructing some bogus argument about why he shouldn’t go back and fight, Chaim should have carried himself home with the dignity he deserved. He should have rested and learned from his mistakes. If he had done that, the world would have been a richer place.

Tom

Anonymous

Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 2:05 pm:

It is also disturbing that a member of La Rouches organisation, would fail to understand the terrible tragedy and assume that any questions related to it amount to a ' political attack'.
It is even more disturbing that Lyndon himself has claimed that the tragedy nenver happened and was invented by his enemies in order to persecute him. ( that statement remains on the Schiller institute website, if you would like to check it out) That smacks of cultism and delusion. It appears that the leader has no capacity for compassion.

I think that anyone who is interested in the 'good' of this planet would agree that a movement who meets the tragic death of one of their members, with slanderous claims that he was ' mentally unstable' are trying to avert any criticisms of their group.
No one has blamed the group for this tragedy but why are they not coming foward to piece together the events that led up to it. I count myself very lucky. One of my family was a member of a group with distinct similarities to this; they labelled all outsiders as unworthy (blocked?), they interpreted any questions as criticism or persecution, they alienated their members from their families and they elevated their leader and his tactics. The group demolished their members sense of identity and all autonomous thinking was regarded as fallacious. The only sense of satisfaction members got came from carrying out the leaders orders. We are no longer connected but we are still picking up the pieces and the group were very quick to slander their ex member and our family.
Does the 'good' Schiller Institute have any sympathy? If so it is not pervading your last statement Tom.
I have no idea if your institute is anti semetic or not but your organisation rings alarm bells with me. My deepest condolences to the family.

Tom

Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 1:58 am:

As I have indicated above, a fundamental tenet of the LaRouche organization (e.g. The Schiller Institute) is an uncompromised belief in the primacy of human life. Much of our activity is focused on the intensive study of classical art. All of our political work is actually a derivative of these studies, and not the reverse.

Friedrich Schiller once wrote, “the greatest work of art is the construction of true political freedom.” In his famous Aesthetical Letters, and in various aesthetical essays, he developed the notion that we must first learn to educate our emotions, and that classical art provides us the necessary tools, because it affords us the most direct access to God’s beauty.

Another great man, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said,“an injustice against one man, is an injustice against us all.” I would assert that Dr. King had gone a long ways towards educating his emotions. Certainly, in his political actions, he demonstrated the classical ideal, that all men are created in the image of God.

My question is rhetorical. Are these slanders directed against the Schiller Institute intended to defend the memory of our fallen Jeremiah, and to seek true justice, or are they directed against the work of the Schiller Institute?

There are many enemies of the kind of human progress that Friedrich Schiller lived for, and that Dr. King died for, that would rather see Lyndon LaRouche and the Schiller Institute removed from the political scene. Happily, the enemies of human progress will find nothing to strengthen their lost cause in the grandmother’s gossip posted here lately.

Anonymous

Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 1:09 pm:

Tom, the fine sentiments of your first paragraph, where you mention the primacy of human life, are terribly impressive but do not equate with your final statement which, whilst assuming that others on this board are enemies of human progress also betrays a rather hostile view of grandmothers. A few uneducated emotions here or do grandmothers not figure in the primacy you speak of ?

Anon, you seem to have no sense of logic.

emulator

Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 6:23 pm:

Now for that fourth question; why is lyn so critical of parents? Fallacy you cry. I hope you have kept your bulletins or maybe your a new boy who cant remember this?neither is it slander unless Lyn can slander himself.

"Your parents are immoral," the group's members were told in an internal bulletin. "The people of the United States are not morally fit to survive... Everything your parents say is evil -- they are like lepers, morally and intellectually insane."

Tom

Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 2:09 am:

I'm happy to report that my surviving parent, as well as my Grandparents, are pro-LaRouche. Were my father alive today, I'm sure he would also be a supporter.

As for your quote, I never heard Mr. LaRouche say all that, but when I think upon the likes of mine enemies, I wish he had said it to some.

Anonymous

Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 9:41 am:

Well look here then at Lyndon's words and let us know what reason you find in thses? Defend them if you can with your reason.

“How do you brainwash somebody? Well, first of all, you generally pull a psychological profile or develop one in a preliminary period. You find every vulnerability of that person from a psychoanalytic standpoint. Now the next thing you do is you build them up for fear in males and females of homosexuality, aim them for an anal identification with anal sex, their mouth is identified with fellacio. Their mouth is identified only with the penis--that kind of sex, and with woman. Womanhood is the fellacio of the male mouth in a man who has been brainwashed by the KGB; that is sucking penises. . . .”

“First they say your father was nothing, your father was a queer, your father was a woman. They play very strongly on homosexual fears. It doesn’t work on women. . . .Most women are to a large degree homosexual in this society. The relationship between daughter and mother is homosexual, so the thing is not much of a threat.”

“But to young men it is generally a grave threat. . fears about masturbation. . . .They say, `See that sheep. Wouldn’t you like to do that to a sheep?’“

“It’s not the pain that brainwashes, it’s forcing the victim to run away from the pain by taking the bait of degrading himself. This persistant pattern of self-degradation, self-humiliation, is what essentially accomplishes the brainwashing.”

“Any of you who say this is a hoax--you’re cruds! You’re subhuman! You’re not serious. The human race is at stake. Either we win or there is no humanity. That’s the way she’s cut.”

LaRouche was speaking of the brainwashing plot he believed was being initiated against his followers. In fact, according to former members, LaRouche and his closest aides used this belief to justify a an internal campaign which was a”chain of psychological terror” as two members called it in their resignation letter. They charged the LaRouche-mandated sessions to cure their alleged “psychosis” were in fact an attempt to crush the will of “all individuals who have expressed political and intellectual opposition to the tendencies” surfacing inside the LaRouche organization. “What really happened,” says a dismayed former member, “is that LaRouche had gone bonkers and was systematically brainwashing us to accept his total control over the organization.”

extracted from
http://www.ex-iwp.org/docs/larcouche_berlet.htm

Tom

Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 9:59 pm:

You present a weak argument, but it's an argument nonetheless. I presume your argument can be summarized as follows: LaRouche said these things, therefore LaRouche is a bad person.

I am not unfamiliar with these quotes. As the link you provided shows, Chip Berlet, a past writer for High Times magazine, compiled these quotes. I've never read anything resembling these quotes in any LaRouche publications, nor have I heard LaRouche say anything resembling these quotes, with the exception of, "Either we win or there is no humanity." I'll give you that one.

As for the alleged "brainwashing plot": I believe it was during the mid-1970's when a group of LaRouche associates set up a local in London and began doing some political organizing. One of our members was subsequently abducted by British government agents, and put through days of heavy psychological torture. We pulled out of London. We'll give the Perfidious Albion that one. So goes the fight...

Several days ago, approximately 100 LaRouche youth began to assemble in Washington D.C. to organize for the upcoming Washington D.C. Democratic primary, for which Mr. LaRouche is on the ballot. The intent of these youth is to escalate Mr. LaRouche's campaign, and primarily, to destroy Dick Cheney's political career. Three nights ago, our D.C. office went up in flames during the middle of the night. We will not give the war-party this one.

Nonetheless, I am grateful we have corrected the spelling of ad hominem used on this message board. I have learned absolutely nothing else new here.

Tom

Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 11:04 pm:

As a matter of protocol, I would merely suggest that participants give themselves some sort of identification. This would be useful for many reasons. It might be inappropriate, for example, to respond to an one anonymous participant when that response should actually be directed at another.

I will assume that the latest anonymous post was written by the same participant who wrote the next preceding anonymous post. However, if I am correct in that assumption, then my disappointment is justified. We've gone all the way from insightful and interesting, to banal, once again.

Nonetheless, I will attempt to provide some satisfaction, in spite of the fact that yet another LaRouche critic has failed to clearly state what he or she disgrees with. But first, allow me to make another assumption:

I will assume that had 'Anonymous' clearly stated his or her disagreement, it would have read something like this: "Lyndon LaRouche is wrong. The Beatles had genuine musical talent. They were not shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division specifications."

I find this very amusing. This places Anonymous in the unenviable position of having to defend the musical talents of the Beatles.

I'm getting bored already. It would be much more exciting to defend Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart, for example.

But there is more. Anonymous appears to be disagreeing with LaRouche's assertion that the Beatles were a product shaped according to British Pshychological Warfare Division specifications, and, he or she is suggesting that if LaRouche is wrong about that, then LaRouche might be wrong about everything! I, for one, would rather defend the Beatles' music than a whopper like that one.

Forgive me in advance for being overly brief, but I do not think this is the place to give a lengthy lesson on the subject of United States history. I will only remind our readers that the history of the United States has been shaped from its very beginning, first by military warfare, and always by an underlying epistimological warfare against, primarily, the British oligarchy and its appendages. Way down the line, one of the entertaining, rather pathetic outcomes of that warfare, is this message board. I assure you, they will lose.

Anonymous

Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 9:48 pm:

Tom, Your "reasoning" is fallacious. Your ridicule of the Beatles does not prove that they had no talent, it just proves you are unable to defend your corner. Mocking the subject of Larouche's claim does not prove that he is right, it is an inadequate comment.
The statement about the Beatles has a puzzling reference to the 'British Psychological Warfare Division specifications." I wonder if this refers to a branch of the British Psychological Assossiation or the Ministry of Defence or both or is it just Larouche's wild imagination .....whereever it is , I would like to examine the said 'specifications' , if they exist. Lyndon expects YOU to beleive what he says just because he says it... but this type of Petitio Principii does not fool anyone else.

Tom, by your refusal to defend him you have recognised that Lyndon Larouche makes some pretty wild statements that only a fool would try to defend. So perhaps I should congratulate you for your move. I believe you have just conceeded that Lyndon Larouche has made at least one 'daft' statement. If he is wrong about that , he might be wrong about other things/ everything. That is a distinct posssibility despite the fact that it appeared to frighten you. Shall I continue?

Tom

Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 11:57 pm:

First of all no one will convince me that the Beatles are great musicians by any stretch. I would never defend the counterculture.

I've done considerable amounts of homework on the origins of the counterculture, and I am certain it was intentionally created for a particular political effect. In fact, the LaRouche movement was formed out of the opposition to the Vietnam War, and the concurrent launching of the counterculture.

The question is: How do you get a population to reverse its national mission as the "Temple of Liberty and the Beacon of Hope?" How do get them to betray their commitment to a republican form of government based on the idea that all men are created equal, and how do you get them to become the military enforcement arm for a great big nasty empire? Apparently, one of the ways you can do it, is to assassinate one of their most beloved Presidents, lie about it, and a launch it headlong into a brutal, unjustified, neo-colonial war. When the opposition rises up in dissent, you get them to "tune in, turn on, and drop out."

I urge you to check the dates for the Kennedy assassination and the launching of Beatle-mania. I Wanna Hold Your Hand.

I want you to consider the fact that in 1969 there was a grand jury trial in a New Orleans Courtroom for the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. I will spare you most of the details, and point out that there was nearly a conviction of one Clay M. Shaw, who was a 20-year veteran of Britain’s Special Operations Executive (SOE), which was headquartered in Montreal Canada, and run by Louis Mortimer Bloomfield, the highest ranking British government agent in North America. Incidentally, Bloomfield and the SOE ran a number of commercial fronts including one called Permindex, which had been officially expelled from France in 1967 for attempting to assassinate Charles DeGaulle.

Now, when one starts digging into the origins of the SOE, and related British intelligence outfits, one soon discovers that the British are masters of various forms of psychological warfare. The British Tavistock Institute, for example, is notorious for originating so-called “brainwashing,” electro-shock “therapy,” and the use of drugs to induce psychosis. Later, during World War II, Tavistock psychiatrists were attached to every major British army unit. Their methods soon became very influential within United States military intelligence circles, ultimately leading to the formation of the Central Intelligence Agency. One of the notorious experiments the CIA conducted during the heady days of the Vietnam War was the so called MK-Ultra project, which included the large-scale distribution of LSD on college campuses. So much for the opposition. Somehow, a generation of Americans was induced to give up their commitment to truth and justice. Paul McCartney was knighted.

On the Jewish question:

huw, you really should have stayed out of this. I didn’t think anyone still believed the crap you are implying. So far, amongst all the many Jewish members of the LaRouche organization, I haven’t found a single one that does.

Tom

Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 10:13 pm:

huw whu uhw,

Yes, Mick Jagger was also knighted. Perhaps I should rest my case. George Bush I. was knighted following Operation Desert Storm. A second term for Bush I. would have been a sticky issue given the fact that it is unconstitutional for a President to have a title of nobility. The framers of the Constitution of the United States certainly would have been abhorred by the whole affair.

In any case, I have not ignored the difficult question with respect to the Beatles. I’m amused that it’s really an issue, but I am not surprised. My experience has been tempered by years of political organizing. I have learned that it’s relatively simple to educate someone politically. Most anyone who has an attention-span, and the willingness to do some work on their own, will readily agree with LaRouche’s basic analysis of the world’s political-strategic affairs. However, the culture, particularly with respect to music, is always the sticking-point, because one’s “music” is almost always the key to their identity. For example, generation X-ers, like myself, generally talk, dress, think, choose their friends, recreate, etc., with their favorite “music” as a reference. I’m sure you are aware of the phenomenon, and I don’t think our enemies are unaware of the effect.

So, I have often found myself arguing about music. The argument is almost always the same: Rigorously defined classical culture versus a set of opinions.

Let me put it this way: I am absolutely certain that my enemies do not give a damn if you’re spinning around, smoking an eight-foot blunt that’s been burning for days, and listening to I Am the Walrus for the 666th time. You ain’t gonna do nuttin’ to change jack! They don’t even know you exist. But when you make it your life’s mission to develop a superior conception of freedom, and you fight for it with truth and beauty, beware.

We’ve all seen those documentaries showing anthropologists out in the jungle studying primitive tribes. They get the drums going; maybe they ingest some mind-altering substances; they dance and spin around a lot; they hoot and they holler; they do all this until they get themselves worked up into a “trance.” That’s when the evil spirit, or whatever it is, is supposed to come out. It looks a lot like a rock concert to me.

We’ve all seen infants jumping up and down in their crib, hollering nonsense, and putting toys in their mouth. Thankfully, some of them grow up. Unfortunately, many of them are induced to remain forever infantile, and they defend their infantilism to the rotten core, without ever really knowing why.

Do want some evidence? Admittedly, the evidence is difficult to find. It’s not like someone with the intent to commit a crime is going to advertise it. The evidence is also difficult to analyze, but it’s not impossible, especially if your analysis is tempered by experience.

I leave you with the following quote from a 1951 book by Bertrand Russell, an eighth-generation British oligarch. LaRouche has often described him as the most evil man of the 20th century. He was an avid British race-patriot, an arch-Malthusian, and a promoter of Anglo-American empire. He was the man who convinced Albert Einstein to support the creation of the Manhattan project, and he was the most influential advocate of bombing Japan with nuclear-weapons, in spite of the fact that Japan was already attempting to negotiate an honorable surrender. After World War II, he advocated a pre-emptive nuclear-strike on Soviet Russia in order to establish an Anglo-American world government. When the Russians acquired thermonuclear weapons, he devised the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction to govern the world through an Anglo-American/Soviet, balance-of-power condominium, based on the threat of nuclear war. I have capitalized a key part of the quote for emphasis:

“Physiology and psychology afford fields for scientific technique which still await development. Two great men, Pavlov and Freud, have laid the foundation. I do not accept the view that they are in any essential conflict, but what structure will be built on their foundations is still in doubt. I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology.... Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called `education.' Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part.... It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment. The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship.... The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that VERSES SET TO MUSIC AND REPEATEDLY INTONED ARE VERY EFFECTIVE. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray…. Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated.”

Finally, in response to your question respecting LaRouche’s policies: I had briefly summarized LaRouche’s main policy in my first entry to this message board: “His policy is the creation of a new monetary system, not unlike the now defunct Bretton Woods monetary system created in 1944 under the leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The purpose of this new monetary system is to rapidly, and massively expand credit for large-scale infrastructure projects and technological development projects to rebuild and expand our teetering economy worldwide.” This can be elaborated, and his policy on education, etc., can be dealt with later, but I think you will agree that this message is long enough.

alexandra amaya

Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 11:04 pm:

I personally have had the unfortunate opportunity of being in the Larouche cult. I met them while I was going to City College. I believe my problem with saying no and wanting to do good things for actual "good causes." I love to help anyone who is in need wheter it's AIDS or an animal shelter. Apparently I didn't know what I was getting into when I met them.

This guy who I met handed me some literature and asked for a donation so I gave him $5. I thank God that was all I gave him. I made the mistake of giving my address and phone number. After a couple of days he started leaving me phone messages non stop and kept telling me to call him back at the office. I did after a while to see what this was all about. So they came and picked me up at my house to go to a meeting. It's funny these people will do anything just so you can go to their "meetings." At first they were nice and asked me questions to see if I had read their literature. I really hadn't read thoroughly but I did read kind of half read one of their pamphlets. They told me "to just come to a meeting and see if you want to be a human being and learn about ideas..." yeah so I did. I am person who likes to learn and is always open to new things. This is one characteristic about me that made me very vulnerable to getting involved with them also along with saying no and wanting to help. I am a volunteer junky so their meeting seemed to make a lot of sense to me. This is the third things that helped them trap me. I was still a young kid and like all people when we are young we tend to not know a lot and look up to the adult leaders take what they say very willingly. For this I went in head first.

I started coming to meetings and started deploying with them soon after that. I didn't take too long for their brain washing to start working on me because I very easily influenced. I tried so hard to please them and I was willing to do anything and everything for them just to be accepted. For the first three months I was there I was almost most fully transformed psychologically. I was out there almost everyday with them going to universities and public places. I got people to take literature and got donations and even got someone to come to a meeting. This was done all pretty much to please them. I kept trying to take in everything that they were feeding me and understand what their beliefs. This didn't totally sink because I kept telling myself that I would make sense of it all later. The whole entire time I was accumulating literature that I thought was interesting and what they had reccommended to me.

I rarely was ever home. I stopped going to class and I gave my mom some bullshit excuse that I couldn't going to school anymore because I couldn't handle it. Well duh! The reason I couldn't handle school was because I was with this cult.

I even went to a cadre school in Los Angeles. I was really excited about it because were going somewhere far and to me it was a fun thing to do. They would say that I was excited about going for all the wrong reasons. Meanwhile through all this I started to miss my mom and my friends. I shut out anyone who didn't agree with their point of view. Now that I look back on it I can't believe how much they had changed me.

One day while making calls to get people to come to meetings at the office I talked to a girl named Denisse who apparently was in touch with reality more than I was. I attacked her personally for her airhead like ways. After I go to know her I knew I had misjudged her wrong. For this the cult always beraded me for even talking to her because she was questioning their ways. She was the one person who helped me get back to reality. Even if she did act kind of stupid she only did it as a defense mechanism. She was only there to make them shutup because if not they would begin to attack for rebelling. I picked on this for a while and I started to make my come back very slowly. There is a lot of psychological damage that we both went through. She kept me sane and I am very grateful to her for that. Without her I would've committed to life to them already. When I was in the cadre school in LA I said I wanted to join. I liked the environment in the office down there rather than in San Leandro.

The cult members noticed that I spent more and more time with Denisse and they resented that very much. So they started telling me that she is very "degenerate" and dumb. This is how much of reality that they screw up. Degenerate means having no morals and how did she have no morals?
You have to keep in mind how much psychology play a role in this. It can make or break you and for most people it breaks them like me when they in these cults. They might as well put a collar and leash around your neck and call you "Spot" because that's all you are an animal that does what they want you to do. This is how they control your mind through psychological attacks like the ones they made with Denisse. You tell them where you are from, where you have been, what are you planning to do and your whole background basically and they use that against you later when you say you want to leave. I know that this is pretty much what the cult experts have already talked about but I speak from experience.

After six months I had reached the end of my rope. I was having problems with one of the older leaders and my solution was to leave. So much of Denisse's advice had already sunk that I was planning my escape from a mile away. One day while I wad deployed with this leader and someone else we got into a fight on the street. He told me that I was immature and everything had to babysit me all the time. That was the last straw for me pretty much. While I was at one of the member's houses I had called my mom to come get me from San Leandro. I was very scared because by this point almost all them were ignoring me because I wanted to leave so they gave up and told me that I didn't want to be a human being didn't care about humanity. I went to ask one of their new members if she and her mom could give me a ride to the BART station. She said no because she and her weren't going that way. This made me scared and paranoid because I was all alone in this. I got the phone book and called a cab and it took me to the BART station. I went back home with my mom and never saw these people again. From time to I saw them at the university where Denisse went. They ignored me because they knew I wasn't going to listen and I was pretty much a lost cause. For a three months after things were quiet and then they started calling me harrassing me asking me why I left. I would start fighting with the person on the phone and tell them to lose my phone number. It's funny how they use the most innocent thing as a phone call to mess with your head. So this is my story. I have never been able to pay attention to people who in campaigns like these trying to hand out literature or wanting five minutes of my time. There still is a lot of damage I have to uncover that I didn't know was there.

Tom

Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 2:24 am:

Alexandra, I wish you the best. Some people just don’t have the stomach for the fight. You apparently never understood it, anyway. I’d sure like to know what Denisse’s “reality” is. If it’s anything like Mr. LaRouche adversaries on this message board, you are certainly the more deceived.

I must admit that my interest in this message board has been suffering. I enjoy demonstrating that no one is able to justly criticize Mr. LaRouche personally, but I really don’t care much about personal opinions, particularly if they have so little intellectual weight.

Scott

Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 2:48 pm:

I would like to say that I have had a similiar experience to Alexandra's, and though it's been over a year now I'm still not quite myself. Looking back, I still can't believe how susceptible I was to what I have now realized is a "method" of pschologically coercing people to join the group, mainly so that they will raise money, and in such demeaning ways as standing in the street and selling newspapers at intersections, harassing individuals in their cars one by one. I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out whether the "Movement" is really a cult or not. I think a number of their platforms are very sensible, and they do espouse revolutionary ideas that could really help the world, not to mention that they have an amazing intelligence gathering organization, and are often on the forefront of breaking scandals. LaRouche himself is an extremely intelligent man. All that being said, I spent about 8 months in the organization and at the end I was completely terrified of what might happen to me if I tried to leave. I organized for them full time almost immediately after attending one of their retreats, and working for them 14 hours a day, attending their classes, subsequent retreats, and trips to other cities, in a few months my mind had become so focused on LaRouche and the ideas that he was espousing that I could think of nothing else. I remember at one point walking around in a crowded grocery store, and vaguely hearing "Larouche" seeming to emanate from the lips of people who were conversing with each other, calling my stepdad (and others) a "fascist" one day, and just being completely unable to discuss anything outside of Larouche ideas, or art/literature that was "approved". Indeed during the one afternoon a week we had off, the organizers generally got together (and were encouraged) to strategize or discuss the ideas of the movement.
I was having problems in a lot of ways though accepting the ideas or methods of the movement, and would bring up in meetings how it seemed a little "cultish", how it was obvious some people had no idea what they were talking about, but raised money and so were never questioned by the leadership and were called "good organizers". When I raised these points I would be attacked, and invariably the next day I would be sent out with Kevin or Alex G., two older organizers who understood best how to push psychological buttons and "organize people." I would be attacked personally and things about me would be brought up about me that I didn't understand how they could know, references to conversations I had that I didn't understand how they could have known, and though I'd rather not mention this, personal sexual habits. I had meetings with the leadership of a few people in a room all breaking me down from different sides. I was accused of being an "agent" for not agreeing with them.

All were encouraged to take up intense study projects, and I had taken up several into MLK, Plato, and Shakespeare since I began working with them. These things kept my life rich and I was learning like I had when I was in college, so I felt good about being there. Then one day during a class the teacher mentioned a book about brainwashing, and because we talked so much about it, I decided I should take up a study on it. on my next day off I went to the library and picked up a few books about it "Battle for the Mind" by William Sargant being the best overview, but the dozens of in-depth books gave me a much deeper insight (and many were written by more respected psychologists). After an hour of reading I was scared out of my wits. The more I read, the more I saw the events of the last 8 months of my life being written out in a book that was 50 years old. From the coercive meetings(not only with myself and the leaders, but during one day I saw an older woman broken down into tears during a group meeting, and then phsically blocked from leaving the room until she, through tears, admitted her faults and that she needs to work harder), to Larouche's style of speaking (to scare people to death about the "World Financial Collapse" and then offer himself as the only solution"), and the lack of sleep, overwork, and diminishing pay (when I began I was given about $250 a week with $200 a month rent, by the time I left it was $67--some full time organizers I met told me they were paid $50 every two weeks), which meant that I was hungry most of the time.

For a week I still went to the nightly meetings but told them I couldn't organize. I read about two dozen books and was shocked time and time again as nearly every incident that had seemed odd to me before was layed out in case studies and psychology manuals. The spell being broken it was very easy to see everything happening very clearly. It was easy to talk with Alex or Kevin or the leader, Larry, hear them speak and know exactly the method they would use and what they would say. I was very sad to see other organizers who I really liked and know they were trapped, know that many of them had been there for years and thrown away their lives, or were from other countries and had been brought there. One girl was coerced into having an abortion (something I later found out was common in the Larouche movement not to mention made sense in psychological control methods). In the last few days I slept with a pile of chairs in front of my door as a warning signal in case anyone should try to come in, and kept a large kitchen knife next to my bed. One day, in the room that they had given me in an older organizers house, I found that there was a passage (made as an attic originally, I was in the upstairs of the house)from the next room and a hole in the wall that someone could watch me through (the walls were made of stained hardwood and had black knots in the paneling, one of these had a hole put through it where you could see the bed).
That was the last straw. I spent a few days writing a report to try and tell fellow organizers what I had learned, and then I got the hell out of there. I'm not even sure of how the few days after that went--I think just showed up at my parent's house, and didn't say a word about it, and they knew something bad had happened.

As to criticizing Lyn (as organizers like to call him), what I've come to understand is that the organization organically developed this way, rather than being its initial intent. It probably became cemented this way after Lyn's imprisonment, during which he became extremely paranoid, and self important (though I guess some very questionable things happened before that). While tax evasion/fraud is a charge used to put a lot of people away that powerful organizations don't like--I once was at the Larouche farm in Leesburg, and while waiting for the bathroom discovered 2 interesting books in his downstairs office (by the way none of them were Plato or Ben Franklin). One was a poorly put together book (made at a Kinkos possibly) entitled "How to Cheat the IRS", the other an ordering catalog for listening devices and various other espionage technologies(night vision goggles etc.). I also know he personally engages in techniques used to mentally overpower and coerce people, I've listened to it on conference calls to his adult organizers on the phone team, and its outlined in his "Beyond Psyche" papers, which is merely a rather thinly veiled brainwashing tutorial, and I'm pretty sure, as well-read and intelligent as he is, he understands that. It was a very hard thing to convince myself that I was in a bad place, and that I was being taken advantage of, at least until my last study (and I guess I stayed there for a week or so during that too--though half of the reason is that by that time, I had alienated anyone who would have helped me out of the situation), but the one thing I could always hold on to, the contradictoin that stuck out the clearest in my head, was that if they believe so much in the human mind, and the power of each individual as they claim to, how he could have ordered young wives (and though I only know one, I can't imagine how many there were, since I saw it in a book from 1985) to have abortions. I'm not a big pro-lifer or anything, but the girl I knew, all she wanted in her life was a child, and cried about the experience to me on many occasions.

While I think politically some of the ideas are apt, and the economy of the world is hurting, I think ultimately the organization is a danger to young people, and a danger to society as a whole. Many of the organizer are trained with weapons and how to fight, and own weapons, I know in the office I worked there was a picture up of a girl (the one previously mentioned actually) shooting a Kalishnikov AK-47 rifle in the mountains. I can only imagine what LaRouche will order his followers to do when he feels he is near the end, or what his lietenants will do with their respective organizations once he is gone (dead that is). Some of them I imagine will start their own cultish political organizations, and a few of them, as militant as they are, will do a great deal of damage to young people, and continue to do damage to the ones already there. Among many of the sick things I saw there, one that should be mentioned I think is an 18 year old organizer being taken advantage od by a 36 year old organizer (as he fed her alcohol and talked "philosophy").
There are so many people like that young girl, and the older ones, who will never be able to live normal lives. I imagine Tom, that you are one of these people, and I feel very sorry for you. I'm sure you can find out who I am, and I know what you'll hear about me (you'll probably be told I'm an agent provacateur). I think you're probably looking at this site because you have your own questions, and your last message said you're losing interest, I imagine because Alexandras message hit too close to home. I would like to have correspondence with either of you, especially Alexandra though--honestly I want to talk to someone about this so bad, but it's been more than a year and I've not been able to truthfully talk about it to anyone. My email is scottmo7776@yahoo.com

For the rest of you, while I welcome your e-mails if you have questions or would like to send me a comment, I would just say stay the hell away from these people

Tom

Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 2:29 am:

Scott,

These are some fairly serious accusations, and if I were just to dismiss your testimony as I have dismissed some of the other foolishness on this board, I would be remiss. My initial response is to remind myself that many individuals who have left the organization, have formulated elaborate reasons for their departure, post hoc, that have nothing at all to do with the actual reasons they left.

If you think I am going to be shaken by anything you’ve written, think again. I’ve heard worse. Some of it might even have an element of truth, but it’s invariably distorted for effect. It’s as if the person has to construct an excuse, flesh it out, give it bells and whistles, and blow it up, so they can convince themselves, and others, that their failure to continue the fight is justified.

For example, I’ve been in the basement you were in. I’ve seen those books. What’s interesting is the way you constructed your description of what you saw. I give you credit for being crafty. Some of LaRouche’s enemies who read this message board will probably be thinking something like this: “Lyndon LaRouche spies on the members of his organization, using sophisticated electronic devices!”

This is simply laughable. If I throw those particular books in the trash the next time I’m down in that basement, no one will miss them, especially Mr. LaRouche. But you should have looked around a bit more. You would have seen a lot of books down there, in some of the other rooms. We keep them around, and read them so we have more insight into the way our enemies think. The Ben Franklin, Plato, Shakespeare, etc., is upstairs.

At the same time, I know of others, including some who I count as friends, who have been in the organization--and have dropped out under various, unfavorable circumstances--who are not compelled to make up a bunch of B.S. We all know that the mission Lyndon LaRouche leads is extremely difficult, but anyone who is rational and honest, is capable of understanding that it is necessary and good.

I also know each of the individuals you cite in your testimony. I can tell you that I agree that at least one of them is a pain in the ass. I’ve had big arguments with him myself, but I know he is not the whole organization. I suspect that if I go work in a “normal” job someplace else, I’d find some jerks there too. Come to think of it, if my new workplace turned out to be anything like some of my workplaces before I joined LaRouche’s organization, I’d probably find a lot more jerks then I ever found around here.

While there are other accusations you have raised that should not go unchallenged, I’ll just leave them alone. I really don’t feel all that compelled to mount an itemized defense, but I could. Whether each of your accusations is wholly truthful, and whether what is implied by each of your accusations is at all truthful, or whether anyone who reads this message board believes they are truthful, doesn’t really concern me quite as much as it seems to concern you.

In the final analysis, I think you’re just like a shell-shocked coward. If you were a soldier acting like you’re acting now, General Patton, bravely fighting Nazi’s, might have slapped you good. However, as I wished the best for Alexandra, I wish the best for you. I can only conclude that you, like Alexandra, simply did not have the stomach for the fight. Judging by a small part of what you have written, I hope you can at least agree that everyone here should hope that the fight is eventually won by Lyndon LaRouche, and not his enemies.

scott

Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:43 am:

Well, Tom, the thought that I was just "scared of the fight" occurred to me also, but what I think you be missing is the fact that Larouchies are not soldiers fighting Nazis, but young people and adults have have been brainwashed very thoroughly into raising large sums of money. One of the things that becomes strikingly clear now that I'm away, is that nearly half of the people in the office I was at had parents who were Larouchies and dragged them into it, or were former members of other cults/fundamentalist movements. Just like any other cult, there is an "in-language" used among members "fundies" "utopians" "boomers" "universal physical principles"--and while some of these things do have meaning outside of Larouchedom they have "special" meaning to the Ls, because they have been drilled with "classes" in which they were scared to death about the "impending financial crash". I used to eat dinner with Mark and Karen (two older orgaizers) and their daughter would come. One day as Karen warned her daughter about the crash which was "coming soon"-she responded, with tears welling in her eyes, that Karen had been saying that to her for nearly twenty years. Many Larouchies also were in the middle of drug problems when they were picked up by the L team, which made them even more susceptible. Bruce director's "math classes" are designed to cram massive amounts of complicated information into someone's brain so fast, that the overload and stress it causes makes people susceptible to the errant phrase about Larouche's heroism that the robotlike Bruce inevitably throws in (I doubt he's even aware). I would walk out of those classes after an hour or so, leaving fellow organizers to sit and stare blankly at Bruce, none of them learning a damn thing about geometry (rarely did anyone even take notes, or do the hundreds of hours of work necessary to even grasp those concepts-not that they were meant to). Larry would sit and give a speech about God in a monotone droning voice, after which people made comments like "wow" or "awesome" and looked shellshocked, though later nobody I asked could really give a clear account of what was said (and I was asking becasue I really couldn't remember). It was hypnotism. Larry used to scream at me in his office. When I would talk about it with other organizers, they all said the same thing,"He used to be a lot worse, but now he's calmed down." That's because everyone that came in there was broken down psychologically, and once they were, rarely had to be yelled at anymore, being that the situation is so self reinforcing (especially trying to explain to people on the street the secrets of God the Universe and the all powerful Larouche while hungry and tired). I heard new people tell me that were screamed at to their face that they were useless, or losers, or degenerates (My favorite insult I heard was "lazy nobody"). I had one young 18 year old beg me to take him to a train station (I had my own car), but pressure was put on me not to, and I was told I would be a traitor if I did so.

As to hoping Larouche wins, I believe if he did win you would see the sort of brainwashing camps set up as were in China during the Communist Takeover, and Concentration Camps like you saw in WW2 for those who are "degenerate" or labeled as "fascists". I think he would use the emergency powers of the president to make a military state, imprison much of the congress, and his underlings, drunk with power after the long struggle they've faced (and chomping at the bit for revenge from all the insults)would be the source of massive corruption, human rights violations, and suppresion of freedoms. I think you would see a massive jump in production, along with a deterioration of the environment, but ultimately, a complete end to the American way of life.

Anyone who reads Larouche should read Mein Kampf, and understand that many of the EXACT SAME IDEAS ARE ESPOUSED. You should read KKK literature, much of which is copied verbatim from Larouche publications, and is the answer to why Larouche did so well in the Arkansas primaries in 2000 (though there is no official L office, the head of the KKK is in Harrison, AK). You should understand exactly what brainwashing is, and how it works (this site does an OK job of explaining it, but the older books written in the 50s are closer to the methods they use, being that it is a political organization and this site covers all cults).

I can definitely say that I hope he dies soon. The damage that he is causing to young people for many will never be undone. I have a feeling that in twenty years there will be several hundred insnae homeless people who are very good at geting money at intersections, and talking to themselves about world conspiracy, though I also have a feeling that many of them will commit suicide when he finally kicks it.

Tom

Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 4:00 pm:

Cynicism is difficult to combat. It often devolves into existentialism, or even nihilism. The fault dear Scott, lies not in our stars, but, in ourselves that we are underlings.

I am reminded of the fact that professionals who work with schizophrenic patients generally work for six-month stretches, then they are required to get away for six months. This is a standard procedure simply because the condition of schizophrenic patients has a powerful, detrimental effect on the therapist. I fear that if anyone were to spend too much time with you, Scott, they would suffer.

Again, I am not compelled to mount an itemized defense. Almost all of what you have written is, admittedly, rather stark, but it is preposterous overall. The stuff about Mein Kampf, for example, is way over the top. Your parting shot about suicide reveals a deeper insight into your condition.

Today, I am fully confident in saying there is absolutely no valid excuse for not fighting the good fight. It’s very difficult, but no one I know is in it to find a comfort zone. Here in Los Angeles, I am surrounded by a growing number of young people who are happy to be part of Lyndon LaRouche’s movement, and I am also happy.

I assure you, there is no combination of words that you can ever put together on this message board that can ever change that.

Anonymous

Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 10:50 pm:

Tom continue.....the way you attack ex members here tells us a lot about your organisation. Scott made many points and all you responded with a personal attack implying he has a mental problem. I recall that the la Rouche group also made similar comments about the young man in Germany.
And yes it is perfectly clear that your adulation of Lyndon la Rouche is absolute and akin to that of the Nazis for their leader. it has nothing to do with 'good fights' or ' intellect'
You have demonstrated that very well here.

Scott

Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:57 am:

Yes Reality check, Tom is a standard Larouchie, except by the times he's posting on this site--I think Lyn would be alittle upset that he's not out collecting money. Telemarketers usually have about 6 scripted responses to a 1000 denials from the public who don't want their long-distance switched--Larouchies have 4-4 1/2 responces, Franklin Roosevelt, Impending Financial Crash, Trilateral commision, or the BSP(-basic personal attack) using the counterculture or schizophrenia as a crutch

Scott

Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 11:07 am:

Yes, Tom is starting to crack. It's very difficult to hear the truth when you have 100 voices around you shouting otherwise, but here on this message board there's no Larouchies around to keep reinforcing the brainwashing. Can you hear it Tom? Can you hear th Larouchies around you all seeming to drone the same phrases? Can you feel their lack of free will? Can you see their potential being wasted? Do you see the money being raised? You should take a few days off organizing, Tom, and think about yourself before you met this "movement", think about who you were, and where that person is now.

Tom

Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 12:44 pm:

I suspect it takes someonone who cracked to know what cracking is all about. I'm sure glad I'm not where you are.

We have three new youth in as many days. That makes... jeez, I lost count, but it's a lot more than 100. You should hear them all sing! The harmony would drown all 100 voices in your head.

When I hear the LaRouche youth singing, I know exactly how God intended a person's brain to be used.

Tom

Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 1:10 pm:

Now they're singing, "Ain't Gonna Let Nobody Turn Us Around!"

Scott

Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 3:55 pm:

Yes Tom, they're singing SLAVE SPIRITUALS. I wonder why those songs are so appealing to the "movement" and its leadership? I'm sure those kids are also slowly destroying their relationships with their parents and friends. Losing any sense of their individuality. Becoming thin. Getting screamed at that they are weak or degenerate if they feel they can't keep up 16 hours day (or at least aren't pulling in the money they need to).
I think it's great that you do have 100 voices telling you everything is ok, drowning out reason--I know how hard it is to see through--I can imagine anyone in Rev Moon's cult in a stadium of 100,000 thinking,"This is what God intended." Or a Krishna in the middle of a drum circle, or a Jonestowner living in perfect harmony in the woods, or any other person who was going through a transitional period in life and was snatched up by a cult and given an entire life to live. There were two types of people in the "movement"--manipulators and the manipulated. I have a feeling Tom that you are one of the latter, but maybe beginning to "graduate" to being one of the former. You're starting to understand how to use personal attacks to undermine someone's confidence in their own beliefs. Learning how to use guilt to get money out of people more effectively, how to stroke their prejudices. You're learning like many Larouchies and other cult members before you how susceptible young women are in the first few months of "organizing". You're starting to see the patterns of behavior, and changes in speech, that happen to everyone that comes there. How, after a while, though they all come with personal goals and artistic differences, they soon come to think exactly like you and everyone around you does, and you've all decided, all 500 of you or so, to save the whole world from itself. And that beautiful sacrifice you're making, for the betterment of all human kind, that sacrifice that makes your ego swell, that sacrifice makes you worthy of being a Philosopher King (someday), that sacrifice, means its not important what your actual political effect is, it's not important that you break up real political conferences like the fascist organizers of old, its not necessary to defend the fact that Larouche writings starkly resemble the writings of Hitler, there's no need to explain why young wives are pressured to have abortions against their will, it doesn't matter that you've taken advantage of feeble-minded seniors and duped them out of their fortunes, it's not important that the "crash" has been coming for thirty years, there's no need to explain why "leaders" in each region have nice homes while street organizers are packed into Apartments like sardines, and that of course, since "we" are collectively making such a huge sacrifice, there's no reason why anyone needs to think for themself.

So we have a rally to swell our egos, yelling at the sky in a group of thirty, we go interupt real candidates speeches to give us a sense of importance, behind closed doors talk about "the population" to inflate our sense of superiority, and till late in the night read about the works of great human beings, so that the next day we can stand in front of a Post office and beg for money,and hope to get enough that nobody is angry with you. Like a whore in the street, but instead of selling your body, selling ideas of virtue and beauty and humanistic goals. And like whores you all have a special case of VD--a mix of totalitarianism, fascism, and racism.

I'm sorry that you can't see it.

I understand though.

It's a hard world in which to be a sovereign individual and make your own choices.
I had a friend in the "movement" that begged me to get her away, said she was scared for her life. She talked that way on and off for 6 months. Then after I left, I called her one day to tell her I would help her go, but she told me she had been "doing a lot of work" with Debbie and Larry(regional leaders). She now understood her "place in the universe" and it was "fighting the oligarchy". Her voice had even changed back to the higher tone I was used to hearing when she spat out her verbatim scripts to people she was "organizing". She literally had a split personality, her real one, and a Larouche personality, that used words like "oligarchy" and "Universe" and talked on "the highest level".

Most of them were like that if you got close enough (at least the ones who had been there long enough). They still had their real self hiding underneath the personality that had been broken down and built in Larouche's image, sometimes it would peek out just for a minute or two, but in a flash it would be gone again. Those are people that I still have hope for. Others, older ones usually, had broken down their old self and hid it away so far it could never come back, or never liked themselves to begin with so they don't see any reason to go back.

Which one are you Tom?

I think you should go do some reading Tom, read Mein Kampf, read The Battle For the Mind, challenge yourself.

Ask the hard question.

Am I in a cult?

Tom

Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 6:53 pm:

When I was a child, I thought like a child. Now I see things clearly. You are still thinking like a child. Did you mean to say that sometimes the little child would peek out for just a minute or two?

In any case, your description is ugly, like your snipe about the spirituals. I would have quit that organization too. Then, if I wanted to experience true joy, I would have joined the one I'm in now.

scott

Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 10:56 am:

No Tom, the real person comes out, the human being, who after years of life experiences and learning has come to know things and react in the ways that make them who they are. Every one comes in to that organization as an individual, but the longer they stay the more "homogenized" they become, and I know you know exactly what I mean. There is absolutely no individuality, no personal interest, no free will. It's inhuman.

Of course my description is ugly. I have seen ugliness in my life; watching drugs destroy friends or family, the extreme racism of Mississippi, cops beating protesters, sweatshop workers, war, murder, cruelty--none of these things are more ugly, and vile, and corrupt than what the "Larouche Movement" is doing to young people. It's psychological expirementation on wheels. Political attack dog-guinea pigs. What those people are doing is stealing the most precious gift we get as humans and turning it to their own purposes. And if you would just step outside of the situation and examine it rationally you would understand that. You would see the pattern of exploitation that is taking place. The use of your fears about the world, to cement your dedication to a group and a man who, to be honest, don't have very great track records.

Sure, the world is a hard place--but if you would just realize that the "movement" claims to be fighting everything the interior organization is:

It is a complete totalitarian dictatorship.

People are paid a very low wage.

The "movement" produces nothing of value or usefullness.

There is "one way" for everything, not a "Dialogue of Civilizations".

The organization has cheated people out of money and the leadership will admit this.

The organization focuses on the less-educated, the poor, and promising them salvation for support(money), effectively loots poor areas.

They talk about "the population" as if they were separate somehow from them, and obviously better than them, which to me sounds a lot like the attitude of a fascist, or a racist, or an oligarch.

The organization spends a great deal of time talking about the "brainwashing" of the public by mass media, etc., while using the exact same techniques on its followers(just the simple repititon used in Hitler's "Big Lie" theory--how many times a day do you hear the world is headed for disaster Tom?).

I remember the week after I realized what was going on there, I just walked around in horror and disgust at everything I saw, everything was so transparent once my eyes were open. I lobbied Congress with a group of 10 or so Larouchies--I had been 5 or 6 times before with them, it always seemed productive, and that the people we spoke with respected us. I'll never forget how that last time that I went I could see the smile in every Legislative Assistant's eyes as he listened to people rant about Universal Physical Principles, FDR, and Geometry. I noticed the EIRs in trash cans of offices that others had already visited. I watched with pure horror as one young girl forced a cheaply printed piece of literature into an LA's hand and pleaded,"You've got to read it, it's deep philosophical stuff."

I could finally see that we were just one of the freakshows in the political circus.

And everyone knew except for us.

Tom

Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 2:31 pm:

This is strikes me as the kind of rant you get from someone who is extremely depressed. There is nothing you have written here that could not be refuted by simple optimism. Truth is optimism. The universe is happy, even if you are not.

You’ve caught yourself in a vicious cycle of pessimism and, and, if I might use a tired cliché, your reaction to anything which says, “the glass is half full,” is to say the “glass is half empty.” Don’t tell me to read Mein Kampf. Read yourself. I know I’m right.

Read yourself, and every time you read a sentence expressing pessimism, make it the opposite. For example, change the sentence, “Every one comes in to that organization as an individual, but the longer they stay the more "homogenized" they become…” Change it to this: Every one comes in to that organization as an individual, but the longer they stay the more unique they become, and I know you know exactly what I mean.”

Now, which sentence is more truthful?

Continue with each sentence, and every time you find something pessimistic, you will see that the opposite is more truthful.

Dear Scott, I’m not saying all this just to defend LaRouche. I’m saying this because you have a real problem. Maybe this will help.

Anonymous

Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 8:21 pm:

Tom you just cant face the truth about yourself or Larouche. You appear to be the most arrogant and ignorant person who posts here. Some of us here, who were once in your situation, understand the processes that produce such results. However that does not excuse you.
I expect that the persona 'Tom' is more of a collective than an individual.

Tom

Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 9:59 pm:

"Anonymous" is accusing Tom of being "more of a collective than an individual." Excuse me?

Anonymous

Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 12:10 pm:

you mean 'excuse us' ?

scott

Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 2:06 pm:

My glass is half full? The one thing I know about the folks in the Larouche movement is that they are all very well trained in the ways of rhetoric and argument--you, Tom, seem to be failing in that respect. I'm starting to wonder if you're an organizer at all, maybe you're just somebody that's been hanging around the "movement" forever, but never really goes "whole hog".
Can you imagine getting into an argument on the street, or better yet standing at a literature table, and having someone tell you that you are expressing pessimism, and so you should,"make it the opposite," and it will sound much better? Doesn't that sound a bit like doublespeak, Tom?
Doesn't that sound like lying?

I understand what you're trying to say Tom. My argument is based on a wholly unjustified feeling state, and therefore is invalid. However, I'm making concrete factual points, and not emotional appeals. When I say that L's "Beyond Psychoanalysis" is a step-by-step brainwashing manual, what you need to do is then go out and get a book on the dialectic method(s) of mind control. Then you need to compare it to what you read in "Beyond Psyche". You will find they are EXTREMELY similar, to the point that "Beyond Psyche" is really just a paraphrasing of what might be called "The Manual for Mind Control". However you will not do that. It's potentially damaging to you.

Those who didn't break in the first couple weeks were the ones that got screamed at a lot. They were also usually the ones that after a month or so would find some back door to flee from, after a good night's rest, or a visit to a friend. What I think usually happens is, there's too big of a contradiction, some concrete fact or action that flies in the face of what the "leaders" are saying, and it brings down the whole house of cards. Your fundamental axiom that is incorrect is that the "movement" has a positive effect in the world. That's why you are unable to refute the things I write with cogent arguments Tom.

The truth is always there waiting for you--since Day One, Tom, you have been learning about how people run operations, religous/political groups brainwash people, and the basic mechanisms people use to attain power. The question you must ask , Tom, you must look around yourself and ask,"What is the operation HERE?" What's going on? What's actually happening? People speeding off in all directions every morning to collect money, to come home in the afternoon to collect more money. 6 days a week. And what comes of it? There are never any results, Tom. Well, regional leaders live in nice homes, and seem to have their pick of sexual partners among the organizers. I guess something comes of it. Lyn travels the globe giving speeches to half empty auditoriums.

You've been fooled, Tom.

So was I.

So were a lot of people.

I know you're starting to suspect that.

If you're younger, I hope you get out of there.
If you wait too long, you won't be able to leave, or at least it will be very difficult. People in my office were not only trapped psychologically, but in some cases physically (literally not allowed to leave by means of force). Not to mention after being there for any length of time you will have become virtually unemployable, have no money to escape with, and be living hand-to-mouth.

If all of what I'm saying is untrue Tom, it shouldn't be hard for you to go away for a week and come back. You should go visit your family Tom.

Try to find a friend you had before this.

Remember that once you didn't wake up in the morning constantly thinking about a man who, honestly, hasn't accomplished very much.

It will be hard to admit Tom. The truth when you're in that situation is terrifying. You have made so many choices reaffirming the beliefs that were given to you. Social networks. Simple daily habits. You have to open your mind. Get some rest. For a moment stop thinking about the tasks you've been assigned, throw off the slave mentality.
Take a good hard look at what I've written on the board.
See if the ideaological claims of the "movement" line up with the physical actions of it.

To all else posting on this board, I think you should try and be nice to Tom, I remember telling people the exact same things he's pushing, I remember being excited, and thinking I was fighting to save the world. It was great. Finding out that there were dozens of groups (cults with a prophet that used mind control) around the world just like it was heartbreaking. To admit that I had been tricked after spending months arguing with people otherwise (from my family and friends to people on the street), was the hardest thing. Give Tom some space to breathe. Something terrible has happened to him. If he didn't at least suspect it I don't think he would be here.

Tom

Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 9:20 pm:

If that's your attitude, take the rest of your life off. Visit your friends and family. Get a therapist. I think you just found the organizing too difficult, and got frustrated. Then, you looked for an excuse to give up.

You might succeed in getting LaRouche’s opponents on this message board to believe that your problems are typical, and that your description of events on this message board is accurate, but around here, things are very different. If they weren’t, we would not be recruiting so many new people, and having so much fun. For your sake, and others like you, I hope LaRouche is all wrong about the political and economic situation, but I don’t think he is. According to your own words, neither do you:

“I think politically some of the ideas are apt, and the economy of the world is hurting”

Here is how I will remember Scott:

One day, Scott met the LaRouche organization:

“I think a number of their platforms are very sensible, and they do espouse revolutionary ideas that could really help the world, not to mention that they have an amazing intelligence gathering organization, and are often on the forefront of breaking scandals. LaRouche himself is an extremely intelligent man.”

Scott made some progress:

“All were encouraged to take up intense study projects, and I had taken up several into MLK, Plato, and Shakespeare since I began working with them. These things kept my life rich and I was learning like I had when I was in college, so I felt good about being there.”

So, he became an organizer:

“I organized for them full time almost immediately after attending one of their retreats”

Scott even organized the Congress:

“I lobbied Congress with a group of 10 or so Larouchies--I had been 5 or 6 times before with them, it always seemed productive, and that the people we spoke with respected us.”

But Scott had lingering personal problems. He

“was going through a transitional period in life”

He became depressed and fearful:

“Like a whore in the street, but instead of selling your body, selling ideas of virtue and beauty and humanistic goals.”

“the thought that I was just "scared of the fight" occurred to me also”

“I went to the library and picked up a few books… After an hour of reading I was scared out of my wits.”

Scott had lost his wits. Evidently, among the scary stuff Scott had begun to read was Mein Kampf, and some KKK literature. He tried to get others to read:

“It's a hard world in which to be a sovereign individual and make your own choices.”

“I think you should go do some reading Tom, read Mein Kampf”

Scott’s condition worsened. He began to hear voices:

“I remember at one point walking around in a crowded grocery store, and vaguely hearing "Larouche" seeming to emanate from the lips of people who were conversing with each other”

Eventually, Scott began to have sick thoughts about death:

“I can definitely say that I hope he [LaRouche] dies soon… I also have a feeling that many of them [LaRouche youth] will commit suicide when he finally kicks it.”

Hey, Scott! You should have stayed with the MLK, Plato, and Shakespeare!

“I remember being excited, and thinking I was fighting to save the world. It was great.”

scott

Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 1:02 pm:

That's precisely it Tom! THAT is the insanity I'm referring to. The need to filter and revise all history/current events to fit the Larouche world view. It's as if someone wrote "I would love to hurt you" and you picked out,"I love you"--the words are there right?

I'm very concerned about this Tom. You obviously spent some time on this. I'm wondering how entrenched you've become in the "movement", how long they've had you. Have they moved you away from your state/country of origin?

Context is an amazing thing; if anyone else had written something akin to that I would say its a very clever argument, but I understand what I'm dealing with, and its the psychological beating you've taken that made that your only solution.

In the dialectic method of brainwashing, someone is questioned (usually rapidly)until some contradiction is made. That contradiction is used to hammer at a person's defenses, used to convince them that they are confused or wrong--then some indoctrination can occur directly after they breakdown. You've been having a hard time dealing with me, because everything is written down, and has to make sense. The organizing model for Larouchies is to put people in a stressed mind state, and then pile information onto them after they've been softened up, and then ask them to do something. For a $2 donation at a lit table, a good scare about the economy and their future is enough; if one were being forced to kill their unborn child so they don't have to get a real job and leave the cult it would take several hours of softening up, using past incidents that may be highly personal and using a pressure group that includes a lingering threat to personal security (a blocked door perhaps).

One day I stayed in the office instead of going out in the field, I was about 2-3 months in, and just starting to feel like I was accepted (though I was still being accused of being an "agent"). About mid-day we broke for a conference call with Lyn. Through the speaker, Larouche is assessing his troops. About an hour into it, an "incident" was brought up concerning Marcia. Marcia is in her fifties, and is about 5' 2", I doubt she weighs over a hundred pounds. The incident concerns Marcia, her husband, and a roommate--it seems like some frivolous dispute, but no one is mentioning any specifics; it could have been about stealing a bagel or high treason. Marcia is being questioned about her view of the events, which obviously took place inside of her house with the two other organizers. Lyn begins to tell his version of the event (though of course he was not there). He tells her it is her "witch" flying around. This incenses Marcia, who has a very clear perspective on what happened, and feels she has been wronged. This back and forth happens for a few minutes, but Marcia, not up to the dialectic skill of Lyn,is becoming confused and upset. He is telling her over and over his version of the events and intermingling into his statements descriptions of her fears and personal shortcomings and telling her it was her own emotional state that was making her view things the way she did. She has begun weeping. Others in the room are interjecting their thoughts of what "her problem is" and they confer as if she wasn't there. Marcia is slowly shaking her head "no" and staring at the floor through tears. Someone who also wasn't in the house during the incident begins a diatribe on how "we are all scared of the mission, and Marcia's problem is that...". Lyn agrees, and tells Marcia it's time that she confessed, and told the truth about what happened.
"That's NOT what happened." She says sternly to the phone on the floor. Debbie Freeman, who had been hovering nearby, quickly moved in front of Marcia's chair. Debbie is nearly 6 feet tall and not thin by any standard. She begins yelling at Marcia.
"ADMIT IT, MARCIA."
"no, that's not how it happened"
Marcia has by this point broken into a real sobs, Debbie repeats her command relentlessly, but Marcia holds on to her response. After a few rounds Marcia can no longer respond. She is crying hysterically. Finally she stands, and says,"I'm getting out of here," (by which she means the room).
"DON'T LET HER LEAVE!" yells Debbie, as Marcia scurries toward the door, Debbie, seeing no one respond to her order, dashes for the door and blocks her way. Debbie, towering over Marcia, grips her shoulders and physically moves her back to her chair. Marcia is told to sit down. She does so, still sobbing. Debbie leans in and talks sternly to Marcia, but in a quiet soothing tone, recounting the "truth" to Marcia one last time. Marcia can no longer fight back so she just sits and cries. The room slowly clears out as the phone team heads back to the calling room. I am sitting in the corner, Marcia is in the middle of the room crying.

It would be months before I understood what had happened in that room, though I would see the same event unfold dozens of times, with greater and lesser degrees of severity, with different characters, different incidents and locations.

Larouche describes these sessions in his essays "Beyond Psychoanalysis" and claims the method is the most powerful psychological tool available to help people overcome their own fears and problems. However, a full twenty-five years before Lyn wrote those essays, the world was just becoming aware of "Brainwashing". Robert Lifton, Edgar Schein, and William Sargant put out books describing what was happening in the re-education camps of the Chinese. Lyn's essays take the core strategies of the method and puts them in a slightly altered form--I guess the main difference is just that Lifton or Schein would portray it in a negative light, because they see it as monstrous.

Lyndon Larouche, however, who is obviously an "ends justifies the means" type of guy. He believes that the lack of morality will eventually destroy society. I think he feels that brainwashing people in order to spread his beliefs is justified. He has no intention of being President you know, I think he just feels that in the "war of ideas", the "good ideas"--which means conservative European ideas--the only way to win is to send his flock out to prosyletize. And his "work" of course gives him super human status that excuses him from any wrongdoing, such as the subversion of your free will Tom.

Look it up.

Do the reading.

Find out what has happened to you.

As to staying with King, Plato, and Shakespeare, I have done so--I perform Shakespeare, discuss Plato with friends, and work on campaigns to help labor unions at hom and abroad organize. It's not my job though, so I'm not begging for money, and the most amazing thing of all, the biggest difference, is that when I work on a campaign, I see results. Actual physical results. Actual people making more money, and getting better work conditions.

That's the difference between a political movement and a cult, Tom. The only result your organization produces is more brainwashed people. That's how you measure success Tom. More people are joining up! More people sing our songs! And the leadership counts success in dollars, because then, "We can get more people to join up( whisper:and get nice houses)!". But the organization doesn't DO anything but leech off the working class.

scott

Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 8:45 am:

That's not a domestic dispute Tom. People in this country don't have workplaces where incidents like that occur. Legally, what I described would be called kidnapping. Assault and battery. You cannot (legally) physically force people to sit and listen to you scream at them.

There are no holes in my argument, Tom.

I'm sorry, Tom. You have no idea how much it hurts me to read your posts and remember when I was like that. There I had found the freedom of mental slavery--for a short while I had actually put every desire and dream of my own away, and given over nearly every decision in my life to other people. At first it was just where I would live, and go during the day, what I would read, and say to people, eventually I was to the point where I would think whatever they told me to. I'm sure there was something you wanted to do with your life before this Tom. It's very easy though to let someone else make all of your decisions for you, to not have to take risks, to have no uncertainty. I know how safe it feels.
But its not real, Tom. Groups like that are everywhere. You can find descriptions of them on this website and others. The descriptions aren't Larouche slanders, they're not written by "agents of the oligarchy", they're not "operations". The "movement" just uses the same tactics and has the same basic goals of a dozen other cults.

I know it's hard to see, Tom. If your Mother is not in the "movement" you should call her and talk about this with her. I know, I know, your mother is just inundating you with her "Mother's fears" about the big outside world and perhaps is a corrupt baby boomer. However, she probably also knows you better than anyone else in the world, she probably remembers when you used to have goals of your own, interests and activities. Call her, I'm sure she misses you.

Tom

Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 1:23 pm:

There you go again with your pessimism. In your eyes, the focus is dominated by recruiting and fund-raising. In our eyes, recruiting and fund-raising are a means to an end. The focus is changing the political and economic system for the better, and combatting the counterculture.

Two years ago, when Dick Cheney was considered to be one of the strongest Vice-Presidents ever, Mr. LaRouche called for his impeachment. Today Mr. LaRouche is working closely with various influentials to finish off that Dick. I know from the inside that Mr. LaRouche has a personal, guiding hand, at the very highest levels, in much of the heat being put on Cheney.

Last week, a group of Italian parliamentarians led by some with whom Mr. LaRouche has met repeatedly, introduced a resolution into the Italian parliament for the creation of the New Bretton Woods monetary system specified by Mr. LaRouche. This has created a lively debate in the Italy, the seventh largest economy in the world.

Every day, a swelling contingent of youth are coming to our office to learn some of the most important scientific discoveries, history, bel canto singing, etc. We even have a well-known professional actor working regularly with our youth on classical drama.

Right now, I am proud to be part of Mr. LaRouche’s organization. My time has been rich and rewarding.

By the way, my mother is a LaRouche supporter. My entire family respects what I am doing, and they respect Mr. LaRouche for what he is doing even more.

scott

Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 9:55 pm:

Do you realize that same resolution has been passed nearly every year? Nothing has ever come of it. It gets a voice vote, and is an agreement to discuss the issue later, which subsequently never gets done. And it's one of two things, an envelope of cash gets handed to him, or more likely some So Larouchies have gotten a hold of a couple dimmer Italian politicians who believe Larouche's crap, L Ron Hubbard tried it too with Scientology--its an old game Tom. Do you have any idea how far down off the radar L is? My whole family is intelligence and government, and anyone who had even heard his name thought he was dead. "I know from the inside"??? Are you cracked? You know from the "inside" because someone "inside" the Larouche office whispered it to you one day during your the minute break of your 14 hour work day. I have to ridicule this Tom, I'm sorry--Cheney's had 7 heart attacks and been hounded by the media for three years about Halliburton, and you think he won't run next year because of an 80 year old convict that has been barred from holding political office? Does that sound reasonable Tom? That 500 kids in a country of 275 million handing out papers in traffic is going to stop the most powerful people in the world? You know better than that. Your organization can't go a year without you (collectively) kidnapping somebody, beating people up, getting charged with fraud [and justly charged I might add, I know that from "the inside"--i.e. adding zeros to credit card slips], or getting somebody killed. And you think that organization is the shining light that will leads the way? Though it may end up another "Shining Path"(the terrorist org), the only political effect you have is negative. All that's being acomplished is the harassment and weakening of the Democratic Party. Larouche has had immense joy in his life destroying leftist political groups--from "Operation Mop-up" where Larouchies beat up any opposing group with baseball bats, chains, and martial arts, to his self-proclaimed destruction of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party, to massive propaganda and operations against the Green Party, and now he claims he's a "Real Democrat" while espousing ultra-conservative views, and disrupting political events
(especially within the African American community).

Tell the truth Tom, you mean your mother is also a Larouchie. Tell the truth.

Tom

Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:11 am:

Second, the quotes can hardly be construed to conclusively demonstrate that LaRouche, even if he wrote the document, is anti-Semitic. LaRouche has said harsher things about Christian fundamentalists. That doesn’t mean he is anti-Christian.

I do take exception to the conclusion: “The LaRouche discourse above is designed to suggest that Jews are a "caste of merchant-userers" who have not yet developed a whole "Christian conscience" through "Papal enlightenment." That just a Sophists’ conclusion that does not cohere at all with LaRouche’s philosophy.

On the other hand, I am aware of the research some of our Jewish members have undertaken on the history of Judaism. It is the case that Judaism was corrupted during the Babylonian captivity, and some of the Old Testament reflects that corruption. More recently some of our Jewish members have been researching the work of Moses Mendelssohn and other Jews who are singularly responsible for creating the German renaissance of the late 18th century. LaRouche’s intent has alway been to create another such renaissance for lasting benefit of everyone, not just your family, etc.

scott

Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 10:54 am:

To reality-check's question from tuesday inquiring why I didn't have a psychotic break--
First let's define psychotic break:

"dissociated", meaning a collapse of the "ego integrity", a state of mind where the person is unsure of who they are, where they are, what they are doing and how they should be behaving - a pervasive and overall loss of "identity" and "sense-of-self".
"dissociation" is generally considered a "psychotic break". In other words, a person is so overwhelmed by either internal or external turmoil that what we generally think of their "ego" just plain collapses.

................................................

Other people around me who came in at the same time definitely did have this, and most there were in a constant state of it (though like I've said they would "come back" sometimes). I always had trouble with quite getting up to the level of parrotry that the L team required--I was still coming up with my own ideas, and I still had things that were important to me personally that weren't necessarily L approved. One of the most interesting things that I came upon in my studies of brainwashing were the types of people who were more susceptible to Brainwashing--it is generally excepted that there four personality types: 1.strong excitatory, 2.lively, 3.calm imperturbable type, and 4. melancholic (these are Pavlovs types, they have been called other names throughout history). The first two are more susceptible to conditioning because they are more likely to continue arguing or stay active, and create more stress which makes them more susceptible--the latter two are more difficult, especially the melancholy, because they are more likely to go off by themselves and think about the situation before proceeding.

I am either melancholic or the calm imperturbable type (though I like to think I'm the first type, which are the outgoing, ostentatious types of people)

Two other traits, being a "born-actor" and a cynic, are also antithetical to conditioning. (cynic being defined by Websters as: one who believes all human action has selfish motives-- I'm not a hard-core cynic, but I think like Oscar Wilde,"the power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those who have not got it").
The reason it struck me when I came across this several times in my study is that L himself (and of course through parrotry the group) villifies these personalities traits.
I'm not saying that they're superior traits to posess, but just that it makes you hard to brainwash. I also had money in the bank for most of the time I was there so I ate well and stayed healthy, and if I was sick or tired I took a day off (which of course was frowned upon, but for $70 a week I thought it was fair;-]). Lack of nutrition and sleep are very important to the whole process--that's why near the end of the day you see most Larouchies with the 1000 yard stare--they are usually about to collapse. I remember one of my "friends" cheering the day I finally ran out of my own money--he did it in what seemed a friendly way, but now I understand it much better.

Near the end of my stay I was getting very close to becoming mindless myself though--I got in a pretty bad car accident a few weeks before I left which I actually think helped to jar me a bit, and I was lucky a few other ways--mainly, I was always paying attention to what was happening around me and questoining the contradictoins I saw. The most transparent tactic that they use is telling everyone not to trust their senses, that your "sense-perception" will fool you--in other words don't trust what you see trust what we tell you....

scott

Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 11:01 am:

Oh and I don't have much fear of the Larouchies, I just carry a gun;-], I do think they're dangerous to the country in general, but I don't really think they're a danger to my personal safety--I doubt they would really do much physical damage to anyone, at least anyhing that would show up...I imagine this kid in Germany was held somewhere against his will, blocked into a room or something, got away, started running, and ran into the street--I doubt anyone pushed him into traffic or anything

Scott

Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 1:18 pm:

Some Good Tom quotes:

"You might make me think that FACTNet operates under the auspices of the American Family Foundation"

"I know from the inside that Mr. LaRouche has a personal, guiding hand, at the very highest levels"

"While there are other accusations you have raised that should not go unchallenged, I’ll just leave them alone. I really don’t feel all that compelled to mount an itemized defense, but I could."

"Again, I am not compelled to mount an itemized defense..."

"I believe that anyone who does the amount of mental exercise that I have done, will arrive at the same conclusions."

.............................................
Tom, to think you are disrupting the board is truly sad. For anyone who eyes are opened or is not in the "movement", it's very obvious to read what you've written and see that something has happened to you. The unfortunate thing is that people who are in the movement and come here to question it are hit by your use of the slogans and "in-group words" and complicated conspiracy conectos and they go right back to the table, slinging pulp to the population for a few bucks.

You've been harping over the answers to your questions about where those statements came from--when I can read them, and I'm sure you can too, and tell they came out of of any number of pamphlets you put out.

However, in my questioning and statements, the only way you can respond is to say you "don't feel compelled to."

Of course people will arrive at those conclusions while they're in a controlled environment intended make them come up with those conclusions. Give me a young person, let them sleep 3-4 hours a night, make them work 14 hours a day, and make them scrape by on limited nutrition--give me a few weeks with somebody in that condition and I could make them think that I'm God. You can read about brainwashing with the intent to help people or harm people, Tom.
The more I remember about my time there, the more I realize that was what was going on. Your problem is, you won't go out and read about it at all. You won't DO THE WORK, Tom. You're being INTELLECTUALLY LAZY, Tom. You're SCARED OF THE FIGHT, Tom. What would you have to do if you were really fighting evil in the world? Fight for your mind Tom. It's MENTAL SLAVERY, Tom.

Why would they force young wives to have abortions Tom?

If they're so honest and good why would they add zeroes to credit card slips?

Why would someone be physically wrestled into their chair Tom?

If they're so moral why would a 36 year old be taking advantage of an 18 year old?

Why would people get yelled at for twenty minutes at a stretch?

Scott

Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:18 am:

Hey Curious,

I was working with ANSWER at the time, and I came across somebody at a table who was talking to people who was very intelligent and obviously knew what he was talking about--he and I both didi a great deal of reading, and I was interested in what he was doing--I felt there had to be more than just marching, so I gave my number, and later when they called, I was hounded for $200, told that I could definitely afford it, and was so ticked off by the person I nearly hung up--but then I told her to get the person I had talked to at the rally on the phone, and consented to go to a retreat--people seemed nice, if some of them were a little weird, and two seemed mentally handicapped--we went through hours and hours of classes, and LL made a conference call to us that scared the living hell out of me--I had no idea things were this bad...I noticed a few weird things on the retreat but I put them at the back of my mind...after the retreat I hung out with them a bit more, classes, etc., got a little more frightened about the world situation (this also right after 911 mind you), and became convinced that these people were the only way to fight, and thought LL could be President--I wasn't really given a very accurate account of his past etc., but slowly, the truth was given to me about the endless candidacy, that LL has no intention of becoming president (though he always said "I'm going to win", and was introduced at speeches as "the next pres of the US--). The closer they bring you in, the more truth they let you know, by the time you figure out they've been brazenly lying in your face you should already be completely conditioned...in the beginning I was told all the credit card fraud was government conspiracy, agent operations etc., after 5 months several people admitted to me that they had been told to do it (add zeroes to credit cards as well as take loans they never intended to repay) by the leadership (because of course the world's future depended on it--the whole organization is 1984 in a nutshell--a nutshell with hundreds of nuts inside :-]).

You should read what I've written elsewhere on the board, too, to read a good example of physical restraint, but I can tell you exactly WHY they do it.

In their conditioning/brainwashing it is necessary to confuse a person's mind to the point that reach an emotional collapse, to hammer at them constantly about personal issues, or incidents, or their past, until at some point in their defense of themselves, they become confused enough to make a mistake, then that contradiction is hammered on until they emotionally collapse (or really have a complete psychotic break), and then new information can be easily implanted in their head, they can be talked to in a calm soothing voice, and after being viciously attacked they take the safe harbor of that voice. The problem is many people, if they are being attacked or insulted this way, will not defend themselves but just leave the situation--walk away. They need to keep that person in the room for any meaningful conditioning to take place, therefore they employ the physical restraint (one case involves someone being tied to a chair while being held in her apartment). Usually its done more simply; someone is called to the leaders office for a "meeting", during the "meeting" a member of LL's security squad (2 or 3 people at every office have fighting and weapons training, as well as the weapons), will stand in front of the closed door. Or in group meetings other members will hold each other in.

This is only one method that is used; I was in for about 8 months and I was in about half a dozen of these meetings--however a microcosm of this is happening all the time you are there--nearly every conversation goes like that--go talk to a Larouchie at a table somewhere, and you'll probably notice the same pattern. They teach it to you under another name "Beyond Psychoanalysis" and "Socratic Dialogues".

Tom's last remark is an example of a very common tactic to use on new recruits; if he makes an argument that has teeth he will be told simply,"You're not being honest" and given no explanation to back up the statement--and when I used to ask what do you mean by that, they would simply reply,"Think about it." The point is to constantly keep the psychological tension on, and to keep the person so focused on improving themselves and learning how to please the cult. Once they do everything "right", once they fail to question any directives or actions, and figure out how to pull in their quota of money each day, they get rewarded, and the terror stops...until inevitably, a piece of their old self pops up, or they want to go see their family, or an old friend, or take a vacation, then they end up in one of those "meetings" are broken again, and go right back to being "well organized individuals".

Tom

Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 12:49 pm:

You stayed for eight months? Why so long?

scott

Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:40 pm:

Well after about 3 months I began correctly using the in-group language, after 4 I had learned how to live on three dollars a day, 5th month was touch and go but by then I was getting very good at breaking up democratic forums, on the 6 month they really started hammering at me in "Beyond Psyche Sessions", at the 7th month I was damn near totally brainwashed and beginning to act like a trained dog, and then in the 8th month I read a book...a book on brainwashing, and I looked around in horror at all the brainwashed people around me--I realized a majority of them were former members of other cults or had Larouchie parents, and that most of them, when all was said and done, just really weren't that sharp, nor did they have personalities of their own anymore.the only thing they could discuss was Larouche or related topics..and when I asked them what had happened to them, they stared right back at me,and with a hurt expression on their face said "Where DID my personality go?" And they searched their pockets for it,"I remember having one of my own," they said,"..oh well..Larouche says that..." And then I got the hell out. I advise you to also Tom.

Did you really want to know Tom? Is that really an HONEST question? Do you think Lyn is going to make a successful bid for the President's seat this year Tom?

Tom

Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 5:28 pm:

"Near the end of my stay I was getting very close to becoming mindless myself though--I got in a pretty bad car accident a few weeks before I left which I actually think helped to jar me a bit"

"they become confused enough to make a mistake, then that contradiction is hammered on until they emotionally collapse (or really have a complete psychotic break)"

At what point did you have yours?

realitycheck (205.184.149.239)

Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 3:23 am:

I remember the feeling of fearing for my life the day I got out. I promised myself to never trust people like that again.

I remember when I use to have a crush on a certain member in the office until one day I went to the store with another organizer and she totally brainwashed me about how it was wrong to like him because he was gay and that it would be easy for L's enemies to profile me. The nite before I had slept with a guy I met. She told me that I was basically a slut for sleeping with him and didn't want me to give the impression to other people that Larouchies sleep with anyone. I felt like a piece of crap after that.

The physical restraints that you are talking about Scott I never saw that. If you wanted to leave you could leave but if you had no money to take the train home or even your own car you were screwed. You practically had to beg someone to drive you home. I was homesick all the time but I sacrificed everything to do something good or so I thought.

I left after six months which was more than enough for me. I left because I was so tired of working 14 hour days with 2 bucks in my pocket each day.I can't even budget my money so I was always hungry. I left more so because there were "personality clashes" with me and other people. I just knew I wanted to do what I wanted not what someone else wanted.

Whenever my personality surfaced with wanting to do something "degenerate" I always said to myself well "Larouche says..." Even after I left I still kept saying it. It's kind of hard when you have to deprogram yourself with the reality shock. A great weight had been lifted and the chains of slavery had been broken.

Scott (128.8.218.68)

Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 1:35 pm:

Sometimes I think it may be impossible to get those thoughts out of your head--I become myself more and more each day, but since those people focus on every facet of life, it's hard to remember sometimes how my opinion was changed.
When in that atmosphere, you have small psychotic breaks all the time, it's specifically intended to do that--the people who walk in the doors without much direction in their life find it easy to assimilate. Usually they grab people in an in-between stage in their life, usually 18-19 year-olds in the first year away from home...you haven't even made up your mind on many life decisions because you haven't crossed that point in the road yet. I want you to remember that not all of what they say is wrong--it's what they do to people. Larouche is like an Elmer Gantry, a faith healing evangelical huckster, someone who preaches the word of God, but for his own ends (and in the end doesn't follow the word himself). A con man of the lowest sort, who appeals to the good nature of humans for his own gain. A man who defrauds democracy every year by taking millions of dollars in matching funds for an election campaign that never intends to win, and uses the money to live in style, be waited on hand and foot, travel Europe, and give speeches to adoring audiences of flatterers of his own creation.

realitycheck (204.33.210.24)

Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 11:32 pm:

Anyone home? I think Tom has retreated to his corner of denial that all this couldn't be true.

Scott (64.3.41.205)

Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 2:30 pm:

Is that David? Hi Dave, how are you? Dave was the first Larouchie I ever met--I think if it had been anyone else I would never have signed up. You're one of the people that hurts me to think about most, someone who is intelligent and kind-hearted and before he got caught by Alex and the Larouche gang he probably had a very bright future ahead of him. I wish I could figure out a way to save you, Dave. Many nights we talked David, both of us trying to figure out what was wrong in that organization, how it could be changed so that it could actually accomplish the goals it purports to be working for. We wondered why Larry screamed at people behind closed doors when they were new, you remember Big Ronnie? He said the night he left "it's psychological conditioning and I'm not going to take it"--well, he was right. Everyone said the same thing, too--Larry "used to be" really bad, but not anymore--the truth was he broke them down in the first couple months then after that it wasn't necessarry. You and I discussed how could people like Charles exist in the "movement"--this time bomb who will one day explode and either go on a killing spree, or just kill himself(or maybe you guys use him to go after people like me?)...there was a story Vic told me about working intersections with Charles one day; he turned around and looked and he saw Charles beating some motorist, literally punching him in the face while this poor guy is siting in his car probably going to work. You think Charles is ok? You think Beyond Psyche has turned that guy into a powerful organizing machine? Into a humanist? You know why noone tries to help that guy? Because he goes out there every day and raises money. Put the pieces together Dave, you're a smart guy.

You talk about how uplifting your ideaology is, all I can answer that is: so what? What are you gonna do with that? Nothing. Nothing good anyway. Raise money and recruit. You can point to the housing market and say,"hey look the market's down, join a fascist!"--and history teaches us that that's the way it happens--Lyn doesn't run his organization like the high yellow clone of MLK and FDR that you folks claim he is. He runs it like a dictator, and the organization interrupts real political gatherings and recruits just like a fascist movement.
Your policies are simplistic jokes, your ideaology a piecemeal smorgasboard of people who actually risked their lives for change--Lyn is so paranoid and full of fear that his own organizers go through metal detectors before they hear him speak. The only time people in the LYM endanger their life for the cause is when they stay in the intersection to try to get another buck when the light is about to change.[to those out of "the loop" this is not a Jermiah Duggan joke]

Tell me I didn't watch Debbie Freeman physically stop Marsha from trying to leave a room while she was breaking down in tears, and then force her down into a chair. Tell me I just made it up for some reason. Tell me that the reason I've heard similar stories from the CEC in Australia and the USA presently, and from Dennis King's Book 20 years ago is because we all collectively lie, and want to subvert a great man. For some unknown reason--oh wait--because I'm an agent, and Australia is the home of Oligarchs, and Dennis King smokes pot, and so we are all caught up in an evil conspiracy to kill 3/4 of the world, and Larouche and a 1000 minions selling newspapers are the only thing stopping it. Does that sound plausible? All this for a guy who the best he can do is garner 25% in a primary in the home state of the KKK?

Wake up.

And while you're at it take a minute to try and figure why he got such a large percentage in the primary in a state with no Larouche offices. Then after you're done thinking about how people everywhere know about Lyn through some imagined groundswell of support go read the KKK lit that uses EIR and Lyn to fill their magazines. Then go read Hitlers philosophy of man in Mein Kampf and compare it to Lyn's. Then sit and wonder where exactly you're at right now.

If you would just look around you and see that most everything the "movement" talks about as a conspiracy or "operation" in the world is going on in front of you--pure doublespeak. You talk about sitting in a room and stroking egos--stroking an ego is telling some college dropout who's begging for money at a table at their old school that they're saving civilization, that, my old friend, is stroking an ego. Sitting in the back room of some low rent office and discussing how you are "more human" than anyone else in the world is stroking an ego. Give him a column in the morning briefing, STROKE!, get him to teach a class, STROKE!, send him on a trip to Europe, STROKE! I think of Dennis Speed talking at a retreat about how "they keep your mind occupied all the time with pop culture to brainwash you"--what do you think a 14 hour Larouchie day does? They keep you so busy you have no idea what's happening, and its all-Larouche programming from morning till bed. You're one of Huxley's mental slaves--taking in only L-approved information, with no ability to think for yourself. All the talk about how everyone else in the world is trying to brainwash you, but not a single person there could tell me what actual brainwashing is. I found out. It was happening to me. It was written out in plain English. A straight blueprint of what had been happening to me.

"If you were genuinely concerned about the 'danger' of this 'cult' that I'm in, you would engage in a TRUTHFUL, honest effort to save me."

I am concerned about you, I fear for you spiritually and physically. My greatest fear is that Lyn is right now in the "breakdown crisis stage" he claims the world is in, and before he dies he will do something terrible to make his mark--they were always asking us if we were willing to die for these ideas...I have a feeling that maybe he's going to give you all a chance. If nothing like that happens what will you do when he dies? You know every one of those regional leaders is going to try and grab power, that movement will be Afghanistan in the small--are you going to be a Freemanite?

I wish I didn't have to be so harsh. I'm not angry at you--though I've wished many days I had never met you--any other Larouchie in that office I would have dismissed. The same reason you were able to get me to a meeting though, is the same reason I know you can break the hold--you're more analytical than most of the people there. I will help you anyway I can. If you want help, send me an e-mail and from there we'll get on the phone and talk.
{scottmo7776@yahoo.com,scottmo7776@yahoo.com} .

Life is a lot more complicated than Larouche vs. Evil. Take control of yours, and learn what it's like.

Tom (64.30.208.48)

Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 2:59 pm:

The reason why LaRouche has a movement with many dedicated members rests in the axioms.
Let’s look at the axioms.

The paradigm:

1.Man is evil
2.Technological development is bad.
3.There are too many people.

LaRouche:

1.Man is good.
2.The measure of an idea is it’s effect on the condition of man.
3.If an idea has the net effect of increasing man’s power in the universe, as measured by a continual increase in the population of man, than it is a good idea.

My axiom:

Any discussion of LaRouche in which these axioms are not in some way the issue is useless.

Anonymous (192.198.147.97)

Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 8:47 pm:

Tom,

You still don't get it.

It's like saying if you don't pay to watch Mel Gibson's movie, then you are not a Christian.

You can be a Christian, and still skip Mel's movie.

As for "LaRouche's axioms" or "Lyn's ideas", you might want to look into where he lifted them - just to make sure that his alleged patents on all the world's greatest ideas aren't actually null and void.

Tom (64.30.208.48)

Posted on Friday, April 09, 2004 - 3:36 pm:

I see no one here was willing to discuss the axioms, and I am not surprised.

It should be obvious to everyone that the prevailing paradigm is strongly “environmentalist.” One could probably make a strong argument that environmentalism has all the basic dimensions of a religion, and that if it were an actual religion, it would be the world’s largest.

A basic tenet of environmentalism is that the world is overpopulated. A second basic tenet of environmentalism is that resources are limited, and man is rapidly using them up. Therefore, we must reduce the population, and consume fewer resources. This is a radical logic, which converges on the conclusion that man’s existence is an unsolvable problem.

Any civilization religiously committed to the idea that its own existence is an unsolvable problem, will ultimately collapse. It will have a tendency to institute governments and implement policies that lead to its own demise, unless it changes its axioms. That’s where LaRouche comes in.

We are all left with the following choices:

1.Be an instrument of self-destructive policies.
2.Join LaRouche.
3.Attempt to do a better job than LaRouche.

I have chosen both 2 and 3. However, I have been unable to do a better job than LaRouche, nor have I met anyone who can. Xlcer4life [CHW], who is fond of posting his gripes on the internet, is certainly not the man. He once joined LaRouche, and I am certain he understood that LaRouche’s ontological approach is unassailable. Perhaps he fails to understand that all the gripes that have ever been registered in the history of the universe amount to stinking pile of nothing.

scott (66.92.173.156)

Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 1:52 am:

I see no one here willing to discuss axioms???????

I see no Larouchies here willing to discuss BRAINWASHING.

You know Tom, I was just a CIA agent with an open assignment for six months, and I came to play with you guys, but I got seriously worried about what was happening there. Now the field office is telling me to stop tapping your phones and sending my young agents into LYM meetings (I've got about 12 right now that spend time in meetings in LA, Philly, B-more, and NY, and 4 that have joined full time!), and the women are getting so tired of it, I don't think they're going to stay anyway--they all say the same thing--a bunch of closet case homosexuals who try to hit them if they talk back.

Sorry, Tom, just having some fun, that's what I'm supposed to be doing right? I see a problem, which Larouche is, and I should have fun tearing it apart. It is hard though when I think about the intelligent people I saw being mentally crippled, people being indoctrinated with the most terrible axioms--can you imagine teaching someone that people who tried to keep mercury and lead out of our drinking water were actually trying to kill 3/4 of the population? Do you know who benefits from the spreading of that ridiculous idea Tom? Big business. Power Plants. Oil companies. Do you realize who was building all the nuclear plants when Larouche was pushing nuclear in the 80s? Brown and Root [Halliburton]. Why don't we discuss that, Tom?
You're such a fool. YOU are a tool of a grass roots right-wing whisper campaign. YOU DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE WORLD. You just think you do, because you all sit around and stroke each other's egos about how great you are. And then you go out the next day and leech off working people, who want nothing more than someone to offer some real help to them, and for someone to get the lead and mercury out of their drinking water.
This anon guy back here was obviously in a lot longer than I was, you should read what he wrote a few times. "Mariel" or "Il deo fidel" try to attack me by saying I cheated with someones wife--that woman spent most of her time asking me to take her away from there, told me many times how she saw me and thought that maybe I had come to rescue her. I hope to God she got out--but one thing that always stuck in my mind was this contradiction: They forced this girl, who was married, to have an abortion against her will. Not only is that just f------- sick, but if the Lar world view claims that every mind is special and has the power to solve the problems of the world, how could you push someone to kill it? The more I dug into Larouche history the stories of that kept popping up--young wives being coerced into abortion clinics against any will of their own. I'm not some rabid pro-lifer but telling someone they have to kill their own child against their will? Explain that with a clear conscience. That sounds like the forced sterilizations that Larouche Lit says were Hitler-like (I believe the article is called Hitler is alive and well at John Hopkins University). And I guess it all comes full circle, Larouche IS like Hitler. And if you could step out of your situation for just a moment, break some of your axioms, you would see that LYNDON LAROUCHE HAS ACCOMPPLISHED NOTHING, except brainwashing a thousand people to believe he's the rising sun, and those people pointing in his direction are the only reason you believe what you believe.

Il_Deo_Fedel (141.157.12.245)

Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 10:16 am:

Mike, thank you for your wonderful contribution to this discussion. You know, if you had just come out saying that you were a government deployed agent sent to attempt to wreck the youth movement, you would have made this easier on everybody. But no well-intentioned person would take personal details such as you have and publish them, even twisted and distorted as they were. I have no more need for this discussion. All I put forward is this:To all skeptics-conspiracy theory about government plots? You mean like this gov't agent WITH A NIPPLE piercing? I guess that falls under the category of field disguise, yes? Have a lovely day, all-your bonds are down!

Scott (64.3.41.205)

Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 10:19 am:

I would say both of those places Tom.

In neither place inside or out is it acceptable to kidnap people.

In those places, extended periods of yelling, wrestling someone into a chair, or breaking an arm is called "abuse" not "organizing".

In those places, adding zeroes to credit card slips is understood to be fraud, not saving the world.

In those places, 16 hour work days for under a dollar an hour is recognized as de facto slavery.

In those places, people who question the validity of their organization are not locked into rooms and screamed at that they are an "agent".

In those places, people understand free will, and when people want to leave, they walk out the front door.

In those places, people don't claim Cuban frogmen are waiting to assasinate them (well most of them;).

EVEN in those horrible, awful, dens of sin and corruption, abortion is a choice made by the woman who is having the procedure done.

Now there are some similarities:
18 year old women are taken advantage of by older men.

Delusional sociopaths claim that they are important (and probably even believe so).

People are bilked out of their money for the promise of something that will never happen.

As to you "still waiting" I'm not really sure what you're waiting for. If you ever stepped out of the box that you live in and had honest conversations with people (and I mean not just the 25-30 people a day who are lonely enough to go talk to some wide-eyed, dirty, raving lunatics at a card table on a sidewalk--which is most of the folks you talk to) who are educated, you will find that the world isn't run by your "axioms"...that's why Larouchies have such trouble at better colleges. You should see them at GWU in DC. Students stop for a moment, tear down your idiotic right wing populist rant, and walk off.

When I organized I started to believe that everyone was crazy too--but now that I'm with respectable people I find that most people have pretty good ideas about the world. Birds of a feather flock together my friend, and so people who have a pretty messed up view of the world come and talk to Larouchies. Many of the people who talk to you are unemployed because they are lazy or schizoid, not because of a crippled economy. Many others come to proselytize to you--I began to believe 30% of the population was some weird fundamentalist or cultist. Those are the same people that join your organization. In my office of 12 or so young organizers 4 of them had been in other cults, 2 had Larouchie parents, 1 was a semi-legal immigrant, and 2 part-timers were mentally disabled.

Now there's a force to save the country.

Look at reality Tom.

It's just a cult.

You've been brainwashed and are complicit in brainwashing others. What you are doing is wrong.

scott (64.3.41.205)

Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 10:43 am:

My boss talks with world leaders everyday, as do most of the people I work with.

However, I don't have to go out and beg for money from people in their cars so that they can do it. They have things called "achievements" that give them access.

A speech near a college. A talk to a small group of Russian Economists (who really aren't doing the most top-notch job as I'm sure you know).

These are really the things which prop up a 16 hour work day and dog-like obedience to your leader?????

I did a search on the Russian Academy of Science's website on Larouche and this came back:

CreateRecordset error 'c0041800'

The content index is corrupt.

/itc2/Search/standard.asp, line 405

I guess they know, too.

"Are you ready to die for Larouche?" They used to ask us that all the time...they asked 70 of us at a retreat: "Who of you are willing to die for this movement?" Most of us raised our hands.

You know the first generation of Larouchies came from top-notch schools and were very intelligent--the second generation, not so much. We concentrated on organizing the poor, the immigrants, the dissaffected; you recruit like a terrorist organization would. Every office has several that are trained in weapons and combat.

I heard from the leadership many times that Lyn wanted a "force of 2000" for the LYM--that that would be "enough"--enough for what? Well there's the safe explanation provided by xlcer, 2000 drones to collect money to send back to the hive and take care of the old folks Lyn's "children". And in the end it's just a right wing whisper campaign, that's a little edgy, and has some problems in the leadership quality of its members who use mental coersion, sad, but as it will look in history, well history won't look at it--but it will just be some news articles about a fraudster politician (plenty of those around). That would be OK.

Or maybe there's a reason they send all those groups through Congressional offices without any cogent strategy--groups of ten just sort of wander around congress until they see an office they want to walk in to. That doesn't seem like the way a highly organized political movement charged with saving the world would operate. I don't know, I'm just looking at the big picture--you do the connectos, put the puzzle together yourself, I think you see what I'm getting at--see if it sounds like a good conspiracy theory to you.

And I challenge you two to answer this, and be honest(and I will say unequivocally that this is no threat from me or anyone I know):
Would you die for Lyndon Larouche?

Tom (66.81.174.135)

Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 2:27 pm:

I believe that unless a person has something for which they are willing to die, they have nothing especially important for which to live. In my case, it's not merely a name or a person, but an idea and a mission.

That was an excellent question. Perhaps you now know what I'm waiting for.