There are two stories here. One is the sudden appearance of a
particularly ridiculous example of a Lyndon Larouche follower, and it seemed
worth the while to save his missives. The other was a striking tell he
gave away after returning for a spell. I'll start with the latter, and
then go to the former.
..................................................
For those not in the know, LaRouches estate near
Leesburg was called Ibykus (naturally with the German
spelling) after Schillers poem The Cranes of Ibykus.
Schiller was writing about an episode in Greek
history/myththe murder of the lyric poet Ibycus and his
murderers self-revelation. So thats the reference on
FactNET.
Its also interesting that the Wikipedia entry says of
Ibycus that He was celebrated by the ancients as a
pre-eminent poet of pederastic loves: Ibycus, who did cull
the sweet bloom of Persuaion and the love of lads. (Greek
Anthology, IX,184) Interesting because of the erupting
Bevel pederasty/incest scandal.
..................................................
    
timefor_truth
New member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
20
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 9:21 am: |
 |
Look all of your
accusations are baseless there is no mode of proof! To get into
this realm is stupid indeed. This type of communication is a form
of brainwashing simply because it is baseless and it goes to
extreme lengths in order to cause the inkling of doubt to be
placed! It's the kernel of truth hoax! But to those who recognize
something outside of themselves as existent can cut through this
b.s! Go ahead ask me what I mean!
Every single X member here did not do any work from the start. Im
talking about going to Lyn's basis and try and prove him wrong!
Im sure there was an initial fascination with him but that
"honey moon" period can only last so long ! After some
time it is necesary to buckle down and do some serious work.
Whether it was Kheris or steve I knew them both and almost all
including Tom, and they all had known lyn on a level of reading
his literature and maybe going to read Noam Chompsky or Read inner
elits, or read ugly truth about ADL, but none of them not one went
through a fundamental process of understanding method of approach.
I have read your posts they are less than intelligible because it
intends to defame!
Why did Norbert Brineen Stay with, Lyn, Why did Rosa Parks write a
letter to Clinton to try and get him out of prison, why did Reagen
do what he did with the SDI!
I know the lies, know the slanders, know what is being said. There
is oh so much a fine line, because to discuss these things from
this point is folly! Slanders dont need to be addressed as if
their credible because their is no possible way to come to a
conclusion. Just propound the [baseless] evidence.
All that is being done is getting one person to say they are an
XLC er for life, have a pity party abut their mistreatment, have
the group lean on his shoulder to show their condolences, and have
passer by's whiteness the event, wonder what is going on, then
useage of the same method of persuasion:
1. Give them MY "experience"
2. Have others chime into whether their experiences were similar
3. Draw others to lure into a trap.
Tell me why that is not brainwashing!
Enough said I will only entertain this to see if I make error!
Let all whitness As I make quick work of this Imbecile XLCR4 life!
|
timefor_truth
New member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
21
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 10:24 am: |
|
charltonrom
See this baseless info can not be proven sufficient. You have not
demonstrated how Lyn is wrong!
I myself am involved in work that has not been done before in the
movement history!
We are pouring over documents like the life and letters of Kepler
that Lyn had nothing to do with, that demonstrate the fraud of
Galileo and all these other empiricists!
We are going through translating extensive documents of Abraham
Kaestner that is getting at the subversion in the circles of Euler,
LA place, et all in their attacks on this way of thinking!
We the youth movement have translated authors you probably have
never heard of that understood Kepler's eliptical orbits but threw
away his method (as did that fraud Isaac Newton did at a later
time) because they did not like it because they would have to
transcend the empirical understanding!
This is no secret our work comes from primary sources and we are
re-constructing this evidence and presenting it to students in
Schools all across the nation.
Now you repeatedly things like:
"Bruce Director here, chief ideological lackey to Lyn. It
seems to me that Lyn suffers from some form of deep paranoia. Not
only did I see it in evidence at points during my work at our
local; it appears Lyn actually believes that there was once some
form of Pure Science, with a Pure Method, enunciated by one
faction of the Greeks. This was evilly attacked by the wicked
Aristotle. Later the Pure Method of Cusa and Kepler was evilly
attacked by the reactionaries, such as Descartes, Galileo, and
Newton, all stooges of the reigning oligarchy"
"All I can say to this is: it is nuts, paranoid, and
ignorant."
It's baseless! There is no substantive demonstration of what you
are saying!
We can read your words but there is not a work to demonstrate the
opposite!
Reading is not enough one must recreate the discovery process!
|
timefor_truth
New member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
22
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 10:27 am: |
|
charltonrom
See this baseless info can not be proven sufficient. You have not
demonstrated how Lyn is wrong!
I myself am involved in work that has not been done before in the
movement history!
We are pouring over documents like the life and letters of Kepler
that Lyn had nothing to do with, that demonstrate the fraud of
Galileo and all these other empiricists!
We are going through translating extensive documents of Abraham
Kaestner that is getting at the subversion in the circles of Euler,
LA place, et all in their attacks on this way of thinking!
We the youth movement have translated authors you probably have
never heard of that understood Kepler's eliptical orbits but threw
away his method (as did that fraud Isaac Newton did at a later
time) because they did not like it because they would have to
transcend the empirical understanding!
This is no secret our work comes from primary sources and we are
re-constructing this evidence and presenting it to students in
Schools all across the nation. That is the key to recruitment! The
students understand they have been spoonfed lies when they see the
original documentation, and see how the universe really is!
Now you repeatedly write things like:
"Bruce Director here, chief ideological lackey to Lyn. It
seems to me that Lyn suffers from some form of deep paranoia. Not
only did I see it in evidence at points during my work at our
local; it appears Lyn actually believes that there was once some
form of Pure Science, with a Pure Method, enunciated by one
faction of the Greeks. This was evilly attacked by the wicked
Aristotle. Later the Pure Method of Cusa and Kepler was evilly
attacked by the reactionaries, such as Descartes, Galileo, and
Newton, all stooges of the reigning oligarchy"
"All I can say to this is: it is nuts, paranoid, and
ignorant."
It's baseless! There is no substantive demonstration of what you
are saying!
We can read your words but there is not a work to demonstrate the
opposite!
Reading is not enough one must recreate the discovery process!
|
dave72
New member
Username:
dave72
Post Number:
1
Registered:
4-2005
Posted From:
76.193.190.5
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 10:51 am: |
|
I met quite a few
people like Steve / Odd One when I was in the org. They were
always good to talk to and seemed to have a better grasp than I of
Lyns policies, philosophy etc
Whats more, the Steves
were not cultish and would apparently think for themselves. That
may be why I joined in the first place and then stayed in the org
as long as I did. What I was never able to swallow was the
non-linearity of a late night discussion about Riemann, Cusa,
Schiller etc and then getting up at 5:00 am to suck exhaust at an
intersection with a nut job like time for_ truth
I didnt quit because of the bogus promissory notes or the
now you see it, now you dont anti-Semitism. It was just
the process of standing in front of a K-Mart, looking and all of
the lit and wondering for which words on those pamphlets, books,
newspapers am I standing there shivering. After peeling all the
layers off of that onion and not finding anything, I basically
folded up the card table and went home.
|
timefor_truth
New member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
23
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 11:06 am: |
|
Dont make yourselves
look stupid I am almost done with these games!
None can stand upright in the light of these accusations!
The Naysayers cower because they have been exposed!
Pathetic! And you call yourselves adults! HA! Driveling pathetic
ADULTS!
Your speaking of what You have limited to no Knowledge of will
slowly become unraveled as I will ultimately make all who
challenge me embarrassments of this network! I just only wish I
were challenged in public so I could organize the potential lot of
naysayers in public as well (I would of course use a different
method of communication because the general public is usually open
minded when the are approached in a certain way)!
Step forward all who think they have something of credence to
utter!
One by one my fundamental principle will be affirmed and
communicated to others to free their minds of the shackles of this
pseudo hell of "truth"! That none of the intended minds
here have done any of the work that would warrant 1/1000 of the
things said here!
They only speak of personal experience that can not be
demonstrated by anyone!Including themselves!
My visceral candor is a result of what I am dealing with here!
Baseless B.S character assassination.
I wont shine the light by just writing words either!
I will show you all the WORKS that extensively document and refute
the falsities you all have too quickly called your opinion, that
is absent of timely meditation and devoid of meticulous rigor, to
shame all into thinking, and away from asinine assertions!
So come naysayers! The young "brainwashed cultist" is
about to make work of ye all!
|
timefor_truth
New member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
24
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 11:26 am: |
|
Well dave77 I am 130
percent sure if the time you were there you had went through a
process of discovery you would still be in the movement.
I know I would have left as well if I were in your shoes.
But the mission requires that we really tap into the same stream
of events that created this great republic, that created all the
breakthroughs that allowed 6 billion Plus individuals to live on
this earth! That allowed Men Like Martin Luthor king to lay his
life for a cause outside of himself!
I am hardly a nut job! But every single one of these posters are,
and I want you to lay whitness to all of their arguments crumble!
Invite others to see this because this filth has been going on
unanswered for a time!
The southern racists attack king to this day! I fight back against
that with an everyday example.
This lot of defamers have said and posted all sorts of ridiculous
things and now refuse to respond!
I stand to really be a discontinuity in that process!
So once again forgive the brazen approach. I only mean to make
intellectual mincemeat out of these types that have no intention
for truth, but have an intention of a sinister nature!
|
sancho
Junior Member
Username:
sancho
Post Number:
31
Registered:
8-2005
Posted From:
66.65.115.71
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 11:55 am: |
|
Truth guy
illustrates well why I term the LYM Visigoths. LaRouche has no
method except to imply that whatever he says is true based upon
some gnostic "method" which he cons others into thinking
they are using when they make declarations, rather than offer
arguments. It's interesting to note that Truth guy demands
"proof" of LaRouche's critics, but in response to our
demand for proof he alludes only to the mysterious fruits of his
"hard work" (at a rock quarry?)
For me, even when I was a LaRouche cultist, I think if someone had
shown me how Lyn had plagiarized Alfred Rosenberg of all people, I
would have had the good sense to open my eyes. But maybe not,
given that I was nearly as crazed as Truth guy.
Truth guy, so long as you make ad hominem attacks, may I suggest
that you ask your psychopharmacologist to increase the dosage?
|
shadok
New member
Username:
shadok
Post Number:
22
Registered:
11-2006
Posted From:
86.6.4.234
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 12:51 pm: |
|
timefor_truth
You are very defensive, what s your problem? Feel threatened in
your convictions? It is so typical of a larouchie... the
discussion will always end up in insults etc. I thought you were
supposed to be... socratic? Read Plato and try to be inspired by
how Socrates was dealing with arguments opposed to his.
By the way, your fundamental epistemological error is that you
oppose noumenes to phe-noumenes. The so-called "real
universe" (noumenes) is not "invisible", it s us
who are blind. This applies not only to "ideas" (aka
"real universe/ noumenes") but also to our senses (the
so-called "unreal universe"). Some people are really
blind, they cannot see with their eyes. Same with ideas. You re
wrong to oppose them. But that dualism is the very kernel of
larouche mindset. Larouche is a dualist, it transcends everything.
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
27
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 1:01 pm: |
|
I have given you a
citation!
Regardless of whether you were a member or not does not bear fruit
on the weight you have levied on your shoulders!
Once again do not just cherry pick what to lob address the
position that Kepler was not the 1st physicist, that Kepler
communicated with Galileo Galilei that the copernican theory of
the sun in the center was the case. Galileo stole this simple idea
and the correspondence is completely written out of history
classes across the world! There are plenty other Damning
revelations that will become more evident as more lies file out of
your mouth onto this post as gallons and gallons of putrid feces
filie out of any Metropolitan sewer in America!
And so goes popular opinion Folks!
No shred of evidence for any of the baseless accusations you state
about Larouche though!
Where is the evidence for:
"LaRouche has no method except to imply that whatever he says
is true based upon some gnostic "method" which he cons
others into thinking they are using when they make declarations,
rather than offer arguments."
I see no documentation. I thought maybe there would be someone
here who supposedly "came from the movement" that could
show me some evidence as to why what they say what they say is
true!
Call me crazed then throw an ad hominem attack seems to be the
common recipe here anything original here?
Cause Sancho's a bread fed joke!
Anyone please show me how I am wrong with Kepler or Larouche's
method which I am somewhat familiar with?
Anyone?
Why doth the crickets chirp so?
|
sancho
Junior Member
Username:
sancho
Post Number:
32
Registered:
8-2005
Posted From:
66.65.115.71
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 1:22 pm: |
|
If you can refrain
from scatology (an apparent hobby of yours), please explain
clearly to us what this so-called method of LaRouche is. Every
educated scientist is well aware of discontinuities, and how the
laws pertaining to one domain don't pass over a discontinuity into
the next; some see this as a metaphor for the creative process. We
know all this.
CLEARLY explain what is DISTINCTIVE about LaRouche's method.
|
eaglebeak
Junior Member
Username:
eaglebeak
Post Number:
39
Registered:
4-2007
Posted From:
70.164.43.2
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 1:29 pm: |
|
I have a theory that
timefor_truth is kidding, that all his posts are actually deeply
ironic and constitute a devastating and hilarious ritique of
LaRouche's method.
But if I'm wrong, timefor_truth, I know you'll shriek it from the
rooftops. If I'm wrong, would you simply lay out for us the
application of the insights of Riemannian physics to economic
processes?
Thanks.
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
28
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Ok Shadok is the
closest to a competent reply!
But he makes an error of lyn.
He could not be further from a dualist!
Once again I dont want you to take my words go and read the Acta
Euriditurum 1686 to the early 1700's From Benjamin Franklin Book
Publishers.
Lyndon Larouche had done work on the Catenary Tractrix which
implicitly demonstrated the folly of dualist's.
That paper is very crucial because when Leibniz was embroiled in
heavy fights with the dualist's they had tried to attack his
method of approach which founded the calculus, based on the
dualist philosophy. Leibniz as Larouche, see what the dualist's
see as separate to be unified. Except the cognitive powers of man
reign superior than any empirically adduced phenomenon.Why? well
once mankind can understand the generative force behind that
empirically adduced phenomenon they can controll that phenomena to
increase how the can act in the realm of reality!
To the dualist's Dismay Descarte contributions are not really
considered in a light that will cause an axiomatic inflection
point today, but Leibniz's are implicitly apart of the methodology
of Bernhard Reimann (who outlines the vernacular for Larouche's
discovery) and Larouche's. If you want to find out how I reached
this position please ask?
Other than that what else do you have as a qualm?
|
sancho
Junior Member
Username:
sancho
Post Number:
33
Registered:
8-2005
Posted From:
66.65.115.71
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 1:51 pm: |
|
You do the same
thing Lyn does: throw names around without clearly stating what is
distinctive about this "method." So you still have not
answered my request for a CLEAR explanation of what makes
LaRouche's "method" distinctive.
Your English is worse even than Lyn's as well: I guess that's a
criterion of being "creative," to be a semiliterate. But
I'll bite:
How did you reach "this position"? First of all: what
position?
"... that will cause an axiomatic inflection point today, but
Leibniz's are implicitly apart of the methodology of Bernhard
Reimann (who outlines the vernacular for Larouche's discovery) and
Larouche's."
makes absolutely no sense at all. What exactly is "an
axiomatic inflection point"? What does it mean to say that
Riemann (the correct spelling) "outlines the vernacular for
LaRouche's discovery"? What is "LaRouche's
discovery"? Please enlighten us CLEARLY on all these points,
preferably without the use of proper nouns.
|
shadok
New member
Username:
shadok
Post Number:
23
Registered:
11-2006
Posted From:
86.6.4.234
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 2:09 pm: |
|
timefor_truth
you re unfamiliar with lyn's logic, which comes from his study of
Hegel's "Science of Logic" and the Hegelian logical knot
called "negation of negation".
True, Larouche is an "anti-dualist."
So much so that in his mindset there are two warring
irreconcilable factions: the "dualists" (ie
"negation", Aristotle) and the "anti-dualists"
(ie "negation of negation", Plato).
Lyn always defined "Good" as "anti-Evil",
never as "Good in itself". If "Good" doesn't
oppose "Evil", if "Good" is not defined as
"Anti-Evil", then it is not.
The problem obviously is that you re still framed into the same
hegelian logical knot: dualism v. anti-dualism = dualism.
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
29
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 2:27 pm: |
|
eaglebeak
Im not stupid! You do the work for the the Reimann!
Lyn's specific contributions will be mastered by this movement
before any invalid online poster gets it!
We will fundamentally advance before any one else!Because we
devote ourselves to the truth!
If you have any questions though concerning the work needed to
master that here it is:
Start with Plato (a good translation not the horrendous ones I
recommend Carey's translations) and the Phythagoreans
Then head to Cusa on the quadrature of the circle as well as De
docta ignorantia.
Kepler in his Mysterium Cosmagraphicum, New Astronomy, world
Harmonies and Gauss elliptical Functions and complex domain,
Reimann, then Larouche.
YOU ALL DONT KNOW HOW IMPORTANT LYN IS FOR THIS VERY ISSUE!
BUT DONT WORRY YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF GENIUSES
COME OUT AT LEAST 300 WHO ARE ON THIS PROJECT SPECIFICALLY TO
MASTER AND SUPERCEEDE LYN.
THOSE IMPLICATIONS YOU WANT FOR REIMANN ARE NOT EVEN BEING TOUCHED
ON SUPERFICIALLY BECAUSE OF THE METHOD OF USING EQUATIONS EMPLOYED
BY REDUCTIONISTS!
ALL LAUGH AT US NOW BUT WE WILL GET THE LAST ONE!
JUST YOU WATCH AND SEE!
I have pointed to the work instead of my words, in the future if
you want to outflank us do the Dang work!
That is why such vicious attacks are levied at lyn. But dont worry
his legacy will be upheld by our fundamental contributions to
science that will rock the world when all these scientists that
you talk of had all the time to flesh out the implications Of the
Hypotheses which underlie Geometry!
And Young Kids who unlike the Boomers want to learn and hunger for
truth (not all boomers of course) out did them with a revolution
in thinking. And breakthroughs in all area of economics, military
breakthrough, and the (area which serves our method of science)
Empiricism!
I wonder if you get it now?
A discontinuous point of inflection!
|
sancho
Junior Member
Username:
sancho
Post Number:
34
Registered:
8-2005
Posted From:
66.65.115.71
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 2:32 pm: |
|
Very funny.
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
30
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 2:56 pm: |
|
Merely semantics
shadok!
This reason is what I state would cohere with the implications of
an anti-evil negatively entropic universe. That is my barometer.
But your stance does call for an elementary mathematical
demonstration so Maybe you can enlighten me with a geometric one
instead?
For my good friend Sanchez or sanco or whatever, I am posing
something outside of the words on the screen! I am saying If I
tell you the method of approach it is no diferent than what your
professor does in school!
Pose the question that ascends to knowledge not one of mere
understanding! Here is why?
After I write something or type, more useless semantics, we will
just argue the point again and again.
You all are either operations or genuinely misguided individuals
here.
Because of the honesty of the question and the dramatic shift in
what you have communicated I will rweveal the path to
understanding!
Give a man a fish or teach a man to fish!
Give a man the method or teach the man the method!
But these things can not be explained deductively! This is the
folly of all of the LYMMERS who have come into this domain!
Shame on them!
But my heart does go out too them as well! As humans they have
been through a lot!
May God guide them through his son!
So if you still ask for method I will give you transcendent speak
what you all so readilly condemn Lyn for because that is the only
way these ideas can be communicated.
If you are ready address me specifically what you want answered,
and if it concerns method, then it will be communicated
transcendently!
Engarde!
|
sancho
Junior Member
Username:
sancho
Post Number:
35
Registered:
8-2005
Posted From:
66.65.115.71
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 3:04 pm: |
|
hahaha ... brilliant
|
earnest_one
New member
Username:
earnest_one
Post Number:
1
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
69.207.169.246
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Greetings All,
After "observing" for months, I have decided to enter
into the fray.
As a thirty-year veteran of LL-related madness, I have much to
say, although I will attempt to do it with some economy of words.
I have studied LaRouche's so-called scientific "work"
and have concluded that he is a fraud of the highest order.
The carrying capacity of animals is fixed, whereas humans can use
their minds to make improvements in their standard of living.
Surely LaRouche didn't discover this? What then, is his crucial
contribution? Did he write the algorithm that generates
mind-numbing prose. Consider the following ratio:
The number of times LaRouche writes/speaks of "discoveries of
universal physical principles" divided by the number of
universal physical principles he actually mentions and/or
discusses and/or explains.
What is the above ratio, and what is its "rate of
growth"?
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
31
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Yes! A reductionist
Can We tango? Discontinuously?!
Calculate how many posts I will disassemble your argument from
that!
Non-axiomatically and non deductively as well!
Your method will allow me to run circles around you. Because of
your choice of arms!
I will forwarn you if I sense a hostile intention I will pull out
more stops!
Please call many to watch the unraveling!
Now your ridiculous ratio what is it good sir I presume?
|
borisbad
New member
Username:
borisbad
Post Number:
19
Registered:
12-2004
Posted From:
69.125.93.18
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 3:57 pm: |
|
Well, trying to
digest this is very interesting. First we had odd-one-2003
actually repeating the LaRouche line minimizing the insidious
destructive nature of Nazism and the camps. By removing the
racialist nature of the Nazis (as opposed for instance to
Mussolini and other fascists), we can thereby make the ludicrous
claim that any banker (especially Jewish banker) who advocates
austerity policies (i.e. Schactian economics) is a Nazi.
LaRouche's tagline should be You don't have to be Jewish to be a
Nazi." And I was around the organization when Jewish members
were encouraged to make anti-Semitic jokes like the Shake - N-
Bake Joke and the Ashtray Joke (these were favorites in security
in the 70s and 80s.
And then we have the idea of the general welfare. Yes, the phrase
is in the Constitution, and the idea that the government is more
than the Hobbseian world view of "each against all." And
certainly people like Franklin, who built the postal system and
advocated for roads, bridges, dams, etc. knew that the gov't
needed to assist the development of infrastructure, etc. The
problem is that Lyn totally distrusts institutions governed by the
"mob" which is why he so hates people like Jefferson and
the other early Republicans who helped insure that the Bill of
Rights was placed into the Constitution, something we can be very
grateful for today. Lyn is certainly a proponent of top down gov't,
as Hamilton advocated but didn't get totally what he wanted, or
the Stalinist form today.
And as to reading source materials, having read the litany of
prescribed authors on the approved list, from Plato and Aristotle,
St. Augustine, having done original research on Erasmus and More,
Hegel, Kant, (first good then very bad according to LaROuche)
Liebniz, Spinoza (who went from good to bad in the LaRouche
hagiography); and many others. The point is that one can look at
these thinkers and argue that some are non-linear thinkers and
others are linear axiomatic Ptolemaic thinkers, and there may even
be some reality, but going from recognizing that these are people
who were all engaged in some ongoing conspiracy (like the Knights
of Malta against the Knights Templar, etc. Rather these can be
seen as strains of different philosophical currents jockeying for
position without one side being the apotheosis of good vs. the
other being the epitome of evil.
As for Time for Truth who is asserting all the intellectual
groundbreaking work going on in LYM, I would like to know what
they are. Have they manufactured cold fusion? Are they designing
new maglev train systems? What intellectual breakthroughs are we
talking about, and have they been picked up in the scientific or
mathematical community at large, being peer-reviewed, etc. The
only thing close to such a real world experiment I can recall was
the 244A vs 256 C pitch issue which for awhile attracted some
interest in music circles. Fact was, I have it on good authority
that that campaign originated with members who did the music work
and then of course Lyn picks it up and fashions it as his
contribution, like so many other things.
But please show me your latest inventions, or discoveries, and
please tell me what journals they have been published in. Or
perhaps we're simply discussing intellectual masturbation,
otherwise known as a circle jerk.
|
shadok
New member
Username:
shadok
Post Number:
24
Registered:
11-2006
Posted From:
86.6.4.234
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 4:47 pm: |
|
ok timefor_truth
to answer to your comment ("mere semantics"...) This is
not mere semantics, THIS IS larouche's method, not mine! (and
obviously the paradox I put in front of you seems beyond your
reach)
Lar's method is based on formal logic which he learned from Hegel
and B Russel (+ his so called "hereditary principle")
That s what lyn means when he talks about "dialectics".
It is Hegelian dialectics, nothing to do with Socrates' (which
requires a minimum of dialog, not very larouchian)
In fact, i do not understand your point here. What are you trying
to do? To convince ex members? Even your God eventually failed. Or
maybe you re trying to "supersede larouche"?
Here is what you just said:
YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF GENIUSES COME OUT AT LEAST
300 WHO ARE ON THIS PROJECT SPECIFICALLY TO MASTER AND SUPERCEEDE
LYN.
Ok thats VERY interesting and I hope you re not the only lunatic
in the LYM of that sort who believes that. Because this will seal
the LYM's fate just like Mao's Youth Movement (otherwise called
Red Guards) Both the Red Guards and the LYM were created for the
same tactical reasons (struggle for power of a senile mad
dictator), and the LYM will end the same way: to be called off for
the same reasons Mao put a halt to the Red Guards: their zeal was
getting out of control. (funny you just quoted chairman Mao...)
Soon you will discover what larouche means by monotheism: there is
only one God, and that s him.
So, please if you dare, try to "supersede larouche",
just try...
This will be your "crucial experiment"...
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
32
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Borisbad you tire
me!
Where is my reductionist rondevu?
I was looking toward more interesting exchanges with him! Ahh oh
well need to be going soon this was very fun and insightful!
I hope you all figure the truth out! For your sakes see all these
negative posts you see posted everywhere as paradoxes and ascend
to the truth not second hand opinion.
It's a pretty difficult concept to figure out actually and hope
you all endeavor in it.
So borisbad I hate boar as well!
Do you understand that these thinkers in their implicit method of
approach (all those philosophers you quoted from what seems to be
a "Great books" archive) could enslave entire societies?
First off how do you keep slaves slaves by keeping them in camps
or farms, or by subversion of their mind?
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
33
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Shadok are you
trying to pull weight with your friends here in this post!?
Dont want to be seen as out done by a cultish youth!?
My good friend the hereditary principle how is it linear let us
see if you even know what you are talking about?! WHAT IS THE
HEREDITARY PRINCIPLE AND HOW IS IT LINEAR! (You must think Im
stupid or bluffing!)
Entertain me monkey dance!
(you brought that upon yourself with implicit attacks that are
unfounded)
|
earnest_one
New member
Username:
earnest_one
Post Number:
2
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
69.207.169.246
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 5:13 pm: |
|
LaRouche's method?
Here it is, explained for the children.
LaRouche does NOT use language to communicate ideas; he has NO
original ideas -- none.
LaRouche uses a simple "trick" to capture the ignorant.
Here is how it works:
Choose a subject that few people know about, at least not in any
detail. Talk about it using lots of big words; refer to dozens of
historical figures, some well known, others obscure. Act like you
know what you are talking about. Make it look "fancy".
Some people will react as follows: This guy is full of
because I cannot understand a word he is saying. If he actually
knew something, he could explain it well.
Others will react as follows: "I can't understand what he is
talking about (it is over my head). THEREFORE he must really know
what he is talking about."
Amazingly, because of school, etc., few people have any true
intellectual confidence and fall prey to the con. LaRouche has
mastered this trick, but he did not invent it. It is dishonest
beyond measure.
Sometimes LaRouche (or his minions) will actually make some sense
(they have to, once in a while). But LaRouche is the ultimate
intellectual imperialist -- he steals ideas/concepts from others
and pawns them off as his own.
This works on uneducated people.
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
34
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Oh and does someone
know where Kheris is at I need to "Greet" old
acquaintances!
|
earnest_one
New member
Username:
earnest_one
Post Number:
3
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
69.207.169.246
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Borisbad wrote:
"The only thing close to such a real world experiment I can
recall was the 244A vs 256 C pitch issue which for awhile
attracted some interest in music circles. Fact was, I have it on
good authority that that campaign originated with members who did
the music work and then of course Lyn picks it up and fashions it
as his contribution, like so many other things."
Many of your posts make sense, Borisbad, but this is nonsense. The
c=256 experiments are pure fraud, pawned off on people who are
ignorant and/or inexperienced.
Indeed, claims surrounding this issue are a perfect example of
what I described in my previous posts.
Experiments?! Please describe them, and the results -- I am all
ears.
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
35
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 5:41 pm: |
|
Earnest oh Earnest
where for art thou your earnestness!
You are'nt being very Earnest now are you I have given you proof
throughout this post for all to see!
Im besting you! Am I?
Well here is a suggestion to be more Earnest:
*show some prof*
Or stay ignorant!
And of the nature of mechanistic animals never ascending to
cognitive potential that you could reach if, you walk down a path
of knowledge instead of learning?
Is that confusing or have you read-wait let me not overload your
circuits let me introduce this name in the next line-
PLATO?
Hope that was not too much!
You know cause since us "uneducated" "cultist"
people could handle it I wonder what it says about your Educated
earnestness who couldn't?
(Oh and once again the implicit attacks are the cause of the
responses)
|
charltonrom
Junior Member
Username:
charltonrom
Post Number:
39
Registered:
5-2007
Posted From:
72.16.145.82
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 6:16 pm: |
|
I suggest that Truth
Timee is a plant from the Enemy Oligarchee. No one could possibly
write (and therefore think) as horribly as that unless it were on
purpose. I propose that the Oligarchee has her/him/it posting here
to try to display the badness for one's mind of being in the LYM.
All that brilliant original work... Wow. Just keep it coming baby,
no better proof exists on the planet!!
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
36
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 6:19 pm: |
|
Earnest! Earnest!
Have you done the work in the harmonies Earnest!
Earnest!
I'll be leaving soon since there are no REAL contentions.
What is a real contention well kind of like the now disappeared
Shadok had with his concept of Hereditary principle! Where are you
SHADOK!
Trying to Google it I would know how to crack through that don't
do it!
Shadak don't do it!
Save your dignity and say you don't know what it means!
A real contention finally would be something that an individual
did work on and the contention is based on the work they did as
contradicting the original author who existed years before lyn.
Lastly when You have (what you all like to call) A Larouchie who
is well versed in Method and the work, Just shut up cause they
will expose a whole bunch of siht that you would not want known.
Like how much most of you really know!
Stop getting spoonfed, as this exchange prooves, and go do your
own research on something that you could actually prove Larouche
wrong with.
Instead of what most of you like to post (there are some genuine
people on this post which is a revelation I did not expect to
find) which is baseless accusations that no one, even yourselves
could prove!
Like Larouche is a [insert here] [insert optional invective here]
Anti-Semite!
It was amusing!
Say what you must to redeem your dignity (all who were involved)
when I leave you are now free to promote baseless accusations, or
change.
To God
or A Dios!
|
xlcr4life
Member
Username:
xlcr4life
Post Number:
86
Registered:
9-2005
Posted From:
66.229.112.220
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 6:43 pm: |
|
"Anyone?
Why doth the crickets chirp so?"
Most of us have jobs and children and real things to work on. All
I ask is can you comment on Chris White and the whole brainwashing
hoax done on the LC by Lyn?
This aint no myth, you have Campaigner PDFs on the LYM web site.
We have nothing to prove since we are not in a cult. In a cult of
personality whatever you think is yours is really Lyns. That is
how he wants it and that is why his biggest tactical advantage
over you is that he knows you are in a cult, but you don't.
Is that dualism? I must have slept throught those classes.
We give people LC history lessons. This ain't rocket science. If
you really know Lyn , than you must really know where several
thousands of dollars go each month have gone for decades to
fictitious people and scam artists.
THOSE people know Lyn better than anyone else on the planet which
is why you are broke, living 8 to a room , sucking in exhaust
fumes and thinking that you are unique.
Read the last two days briefings about "Power Squads".
This is from the 1970s when we started to ramp up field
depoloyments. We sent our best street fundraisers to different
cities and called the "Flying Squads". Next we upped the
telephone income by setting up Power squads who met with the
contacts in trying to get more money from them.
This evolved into "Specials" teams who then were sent
out to get money in the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars
for Lyn. So what ever you say here about original readings and
Lyns mumbo jumbo does not mean squat because we know where you
will be ending up. Your hoping for a desk instead of a card table
shrine. That desk may be connected to a phone for a nice 16 hour
shift to raise money to save the world from same enemies with
different names.
Instead of shale oil slavery Lyn will give you bio fuel horrors.
Instead of Jimmy Carter being a 100 times worse than Hitler he
gives you Al Gore as a 100 times worse than Hitler.
To me, the LYM is like people from years ago who went out to test
ride Yugos. If you never drove a real car, then a YUGO seemed Ok
at the dealer who told you everything you wanted to hear. Once you
bought it, it was too late. Anyone who does a search for "larouche
+ cult" gets this site and they can see the cult of
personality in real time.
If Chris White is too much from the past, any thoughts about
leader Dino De Paoli?
xlcr4life@hotmail.com
|
shadok
New member
Username:
shadok
Post Number:
25
Registered:
11-2006
Posted From:
86.6.4.234
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 6:50 pm: |
|
timefor_truth
mmmm gettin nervous? already tired? u re now calling me
"monkey"?
What s interesting is not what you re answering but the questions
you avoid to answer. I think you begin to integrate larouche's
dialectical method... ie to change the subject!
or escape our arguments with some dignity
But for your information, here s what your god wrote about the
"hereditary principle" (I dont need to google it and I
know what lar means):
"Any prevailing body of ideas about man and the universe,
most clearly and simply mathematical science, can be interpreted
as a logical latticework defined everywhere by some
"hereditary principle." This principle may be either of
the syllogistic or constructive species. In the case of a
syllogistic lattice-work, all theorems have embedded in them
reflections of the axioms and postulates upon which the
elaboration of the lattice-work is premised." ("On The
Subject of B.G. Tilak's Thesis" - 1984)
It is also found in B Russell's "Introduction to Mathematical
Philosophy" but it is limited to ... natural numbers!
In any cases, both are aristotelean in essence.
The "hereditary principle" is a wonderful magic wand
larouche uses any time any where he needs to label somebody or
something of... whatever he needs to. When asked why, his answer
will be, "thats because of the "hereditary
principle"!"
|
charltonrom
Junior Member
Username:
charltonrom
Post Number:
40
Registered:
5-2007
Posted From:
72.16.145.82
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 8:26 pm: |
|
New notion: the
LaRouche Zinger. Another such catch-all, ad hoc Zinger is the
"fallacy of composition." Lyn used to trot this one out
pretty frequently and some of the senior members learned how to
parrot the utterance. Since as we are gently reminded by the
acolytes Lyn is beyond Aristotelian logic one wonders why logical
fallacies are referenced. Oh well, I guess it's just more proof of
his genius, that he can refer to fallacies but doesn't have to
define them or abide by ordinary reasoning himself. "You're
engaging in a fallacy of composition!" I used to hear. It
seemed to be the only fallacy Lyn had heard of so he liked to trot
it out I guess to impress some folks. Glaring fallacies in his own
writings and assertions, e.g., that when the Kursk sub went down
it proved that the oligarchy were provoking the Russians, are OK.
Any sort of reasoning or thought patterns that Lyn disapproves of
can thus be readily depotentiated, with aid of the aforementioned
Zinger.
|
charltonrom
Junior Member
Username:
charltonrom
Post Number:
41
Registered:
5-2007
Posted From:
72.16.145.82
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 9:08 pm: |
|
Earnest One really
hits the nail on the head. I believe that the final key to
decoding Lyn's contemporary ideology, which I admit is a
fantastically elaborated structure, is the concept of the
Universal Physical Principle. As Earnest One put it:
"The number of times LaRouche writes/speaks of
"discoveries of universal physical principles" divided
by the number of universal physical principles he actually
mentions and/or discusses and/or explains."
The only Universal Physical Principle Lyn ever mentions is
gravity. He once made mention of a "roster of universal
physical principles," but this was never elaborated. The
Least Time idea is mentioned some.
What this is, is a rather massively developed pseudoscience. Lyn
says some beautiful things; that's why so many are drawn to him.
His insistence on man vs ape and the attempt to descry and promote
a politics thereof, is interesting. I used to think that there
would be a noetic revolution based on this that would maybe sweep
the world and usher in a new age of human physical progress.
If such a thing could happen, it won't be based on the U.P.P
ideology. What that does, is reinforce Lyn's romanticism, of
Original Discovery, and especially of HIS original discovery; all
true science is "original discovery," referenced back to
the standard of Lyn's epochal 1948-52 "original
discovery" rebutting the cyberneticists. And so on.
Self-serving propaganda with absurd corollaries, like the facile
condemnations and calumnifications.
You can't fault the guy for indolence. I couldn't put any real
trust in him but I have to say there are SOME positive elements to
his work, despite the cultlike aspects. Maybe it's the SPIRIT of
discovery, of Man the Seeker that he wishes to enshrine and
promote. But a new Humanism (if it can be constructed at all)is
going to require a lot more work, and richer, truer doctrine than
the fodder currently being fed to the LYM.
charltonrom@gmail.com
|
sancho
Junior Member
Username:
sancho
Post Number:
36
Registered:
8-2005
Posted From:
66.65.115.71
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 9:40 pm: |
|
As inspiring as the
notion of homo quaerens or homo faber is to me as well, several
considerations come to mind:
(1) in every field right at this moment there are oodles of
creative people doing groundbreaking work, for example in
biological sciences - they do not need an uneducated cheerleader
like LaRouche to inspire them as they are too busy actually making
creative discoveries - but the organization belittles all of this
activity because people are not being creative the LaRouche way,
LaRouche being a guy who never had an original idea in his life
apart from slapping incongruous elements together in a hideous
collage;
(2) if "being creative" were to become the dominant
ethos of a society, I fear the marginalization of many who for
whatever reason are at a given moment incapable of generating or
even appreciating creative works thereby introducing the notion
that some are more "human" than others;
(3) my own humble opinion is that we should promote the Decalogue
and Beatitudes - but good conduct and poverty of spirit would not
do for a criminal cult such as the LaRouche organization. Although
I strive to discover or create new things in several fields, I
derive much greater satisfaction in trying - and daily failing in
some area or other - to be a good man. This is one way in which we
are made in God's image: to love what is good and true. The
ability to create something new is just one among many of God's
additional blessings, but in the end it is not what makes us
uniquely human. It is the agon of the spirit against the flesh
that defines us.
Just my two cents on the matter.
P.S. I'm waiting for someone to clearly state what LaRouche's
"fundamental discovery" was. Please enlighten me.
|
kheris
New member
Username:
kheris
Post Number:
1
Registered:
11-2004
Posted From:
76.193.189.106
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 10:20 pm: |
|
@ time_for_truth
Oh and does someone know where Kheris is at I need to
"Greet" old acquaintances!
So 'greet' me then.
|
eaglebeak
Junior Member
Username:
eaglebeak
Post Number:
40
Registered:
4-2007
Posted From:
162.84.73.112
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 11:00 pm: |
|
I'm telling you,
folks--Timefor truth is a satirist, brilliantly skewering the
LaRoucheans by imitating them so deftly--yet with that hilarious,
high-spirited high-jinks difference that tells you this is no real
LYMer--too funny.
(Message edited by eaglebeak on June 08, 2007)
|
borisbad
New member
Username:
borisbad
Post Number:
20
Registered:
12-2004
Posted From:
72.225.146.158
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 11:01 pm: |
|
for time for truth
I'll give you a very LaRouchean concept. When you live in a
controlled environment then everything is like the proverbial
goldfish bowl, or watching the shadows on the cave and imagining
it reality. That's the world the LYMers live in. But when I hear
the tone of voice, I can imagine how the LYMers are used by Lyn to
terrorize the so-called baby boomers and dead enders who are being
shuffled aside by the new "prometheans" directly
fashioned by Lyn and with no independent thought ability other
than what Lyn pushes on them. The difference with the Baby Boomers
so called is many of them came out of other political
organizations or had some kind of life experience that sometimes
caused them to experience the "cognitive dissonance"
between what Lyn instills and what they might have uncovered by
actually studying those like Marx, Lenin, Hegel, Fueurbach,
Luxemburg and others that Lyn initially claimed to have absorbed
and transcended. I can imagine the tone of voice that time for
truth utters, backed by a shrieking NC'er like Harley or Larry or
Debby or Dennis, to cow the half-hearted or burnt out members who
lived with LaRouche's lies and delusions for twenty or thirty
years and have absolutely nothing to show for it, unless they're
lucky enough to have social security. But of course, since the
crash is imminent (as if we weren't hearing that since 1972), we
don't have to worry about things like saving or preparing for the
future since we have to Live for LaRouche or Die for (Rockefeller,
Rohatyn, George Schultz, the Queen of England, the Synarchists, or
whomever).
It's like the believers in the 9/11 Truth Commission. Gather a few
facts that seem to point to a dramatic conspiracy to kill
thousands of Americans (especially point to the Jews or the
Zionists to get the Arab money behind you). Then show how the mass
media is blacking out the truth on 9/11, which only Lyn and some
other internet conspiracy buffs seem to have uncovered, and you
have shown how you are in on the secrets known only to the inner
elite. Time for Truth seems much more the person who can be a
committed shock trooper for Lyn than odd_one who seems to see
everything as more like a clever intellectual exercise. But we'll
see a year from now what happens (if the world survives that long
without LaRouche in power).
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
37
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 11:09 pm: |
|
Hardly good friend
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
38
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 11:26 pm: |
|
Ahh my good friend
Kheris we meet again!
My heart!
People I am a larouchie! I know too much about her! She will
testify!
Let the games begin I will demonstrate one crucial the validation
of universal principles are all ready?
But first Kheris what occupies your time now that you have left
the "brainwashing" cult?
You all are still stuck in the insult without proof stage!
Tiresome indeed!
I do like the compliments in only the context as the
dimensionality and uniqueness of diffrent members are being
contrasted!
But I am not being pompass for the sake of being such I am merely
demonstrating a point!
This is where you come in Kheris!
LEVY ALL AND EVERY QUALM THAT LED YOU TO LEAVE, IF IT IS BASELESS
THEN PLEASE DO NOT BRING IT INTO DISCUSSION!
But now a wonderful exchange should be taking place before I go
into the non-axiomatic demonstration of universal principles!
Commence!
Timefor truth to once again rise to the surface!
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
39
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 11:45 pm: |
|
Have you left
already sweet kheris?
|
kheris
New member
Username:
kheris
Post Number:
2
Registered:
11-2004
Posted From:
76.193.189.106
|
| Posted
on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 11:55 pm: |
|
Ahh my good
friend Kheris we meet again!
I don't believe I know you.
My heart!
People I am a larouchie! I know too much about her! She will
testify!
But first Kheris what occupies your time now that you have left
the "brainwashing" cult?
Whatever are you nattering about? I wasn't in "the
brainwashing" cult. But since you claim firsthand knowledge
of the state of the LYM, perhaps you can tell us how much Beltran
gets paid to put on the workshops. We have read earlier that
funding for the voice
and drama lessons for the LYM is a fairly high priority. Since
Beltran declared himself a Larouchie I assumed he was working for
free, or a pittance, as his contribution to the org's health and
welfare.
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
40
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 12:33 am: |
|
Right when I arrive
the party is over!
Saddening.
Ah oh well I will come back tomorrow for you kheris!
I must know ever since you left I wondered why?
How is Aaron doing?
Is he here in this abominable environ as well?
Tomorrow will be the last day I am ever here! So if you have some
questions (this is of course directed to the peanut gallery)
please congeal them like shadok (except with out the COPY and
PASTE tactics shadok employed as I distinctly warned will not work
with me earlier in the post) and I will address them accordingly.
PUT THEM IN YOUR OWN WORDS! BEWARE I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH LYN'S
PROSE!
The question of Universal physical principles is the single most
important question I have encountered here, and I will address it
non-axiomatically and leave you all works for which you can do
your own investigation!
I truly intend on giving you a (mathematical zero) inkling of
understanding of the beauty of Larouche's method!
It is a necesary fundamental something alas Kheris or any X member
here understood outside of the words Lyn wrote, and this is
because they did not explore where Lyn had gotten this idea
because Plato knew it as well!
I could still go tonight If she comes but if she does not I will
wait until tommorrow!
I will not supply the end all be all for this concept! After the
work is done full understanding and knowledge will be yours!
So get your questions ready and tommorrow dont say anything
ANYTHING that you cant back up with:
1.Documentation,
2.An understanding where the method comes from
3.Why the particular instance you are citing is in the context of
whatever it is in, as well as how the context fits the author from
which you procured the information from.
For those idiots that still make baseless "personal
experience" attacks on Lyn I only ask that you not comment on
what Lyn says but why he says what he does with proof. I hope that
is Layman enough!
Now we lie in wait!
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
41
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 12:42 am: |
|
Oh well that changes
everything indeed!
Ask me something of more credence that question is one I dont
think will aid beltran who is doing good work here lyn personally
put beltran in this position because of beltran's particular
capability and connection to the classical method.
That is all that needs espousing... wait how do you know of Harley
Schlanger and what was he insulting you about a post that you had
talked about so long ago in old posts, or am I mistaken?
If I am it is to no avail!
|
earnest_one
New member
Username:
earnest_one
Post Number:
4
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
69.207.169.246
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 1:05 am: |
|
Timefor_tea-time:
I have a simple, straightforward request:
Please list twelve (12) "Universal Physical Principles"
along with a short description of their history. Please include:
1. date(s) of discovery
2. name of discoverer(s)
3. importance for the development of humankind (technological
spinoffs, conceptual impact, etc)
4. book, journal, and/or web site references
I would like to learn something, truly, about this most important
area.
Earnest One
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
42
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 1:40 am: |
|
Too much indeed
Earnest!
I dont intend on writing your dissertation full with source
documentation as well!
My good friend I will define the field of activity because to
express a beautiful object of the soul in such terms as presented
would be tantamount to calling Larouche God!
You dont want me to commit Blaspheme do you!
*Sigh*
Some try the most devious tricks!
I will say this the person you have become earnest one will have
to change in order to understand a universal principle!
You have openly accepted certain things like the implicit approach
in your request, that demonstrate you inability to transcend logic
to knowledge!
Here give me something that you have studied extensively! Anything
in your full array of knowledge that you have done some original
source work documentation!
I will demonstrate a relative universal now!
Absolutely anything! I will prove what I mean!
|
howie
New member
Username:
howie
Post Number:
13
Registered:
4-2007
Posted From:
66.206.87.117
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 2:47 am: |
|
klerus: timefortruth
singled you out in posting to another, long since not posted-to
thread:
They then make further folly with trying to DEDUCTIVELY explain
away their REASONING! The example of Kheris is far too appalling!
She asserts what she asserts with relative ease of words. She
truly has some issues to grapple with. Her claims along with all
who negatively attack Larouche have no real intention to find out
the truth or they would have asked Lyn themselves
I have an internal debate about time-for-truth's level of
self-awareness. He does know that his purple prose makes him a
buffoon, right? On one hand, he carries on with this "FLEA
BEFORE ME, MERE MORTALS!". On the other hand, he
pre-emptively shouts the "Not brainwashed. Nope. Not me"
as well that statement that in other situations, he communicates
differently.
Either eaglebreak is right, or he is the final product of
Larouche's schooling / programming. Apparently some ex-Larouchites
see their former selves in him, and that passage I stuck up from
Ruth Williams approaches where time-for-truth is.
Okay, Time for Truth. Here's a basic problem with Larouche. He
sees everything as a game. You, who are a reflection of Larouche's
ego, do so too. Or so you give away with
Good night!
Good Riddance!
Good Fight!
When I posted a series of posts on the history of Larouche, based
basically on mainstream news features from the past four decades
with a smattering of material from Larouche, Dianne Bettag left a
comment where she apparently thought she had successfully
"check-mated" me. Her comment ended with "Good
Game!"
It is a game for Larouche. Everything. His political and
philosophical underpinnings -- a Mad Libs puzzle. The Doubling of
the Cubes -- moving it into the realm of the metaphysical just as
awkwardly as new agers like to move String Theory into their
spiritual and metaphysical realm, to the chagrin of theoretical
physicists.
You believe that the reason there are ex-members are because of
some intellectual sloth when confronted with the genius of
Larouche. They weren't TOUGH enough to handle this rigorous
intellectual regime. No. I think they left because they realized
they were wasting their time playing games.
You have already rejected out of hand any and all personal
testimonies and accounts of experiences. Convenient. Nonetheless,
eaglebeak said it as:
Speaking of discussion, here's a test to try with LaRouche,
LYMers: Copy down verbatim something he said a week ago or a month
ago, and then insert it into a LYM cadre school
"dialogue" with LHL. Say, "I was just thinking
about X, and I thought--" and then read, word for word,
whatever it was of LaRouche's you copied down.
Then sit back and watch LaRouche say, "No no no" or
"You're missing the point," or "The issue is"
and proceed to tear apart his own dictum--because he thinks he's
attacking what you said, and because LaRouche cannot possibly let
anyone say anything without attacking it or correcting it.
More than one Labor Committee member has tried this, as a litmus
test on the way out the door.
Games. It is why you communicating like a bad cartoon
super-villian. This is a game to you.
I am wondering about you. I know you are not going to answer this
question, but really... who were you before you accepted Lyndon
Larouche as your own personal savior? As patronizing as my
attitude toward you may be, I think I have more humanity toward
someone who entered the orbit of Larouche than you have toward one
who has exited the orbit of Larouche.
|
howie
New member
Username:
howie
Post Number:
14
Registered:
4-2007
Posted From:
66.206.87.117
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 2:49 am: |
|
To jmp87, akka...
jimmyyo?: My response to the comment on returning to college but
"bringing the best of Larouche" with you is actually
more sincere than I originally thought when I posted them. However
warped the manner the Larouche cadre school covered some topics, I
think you would be ahead of the curve with them in an
undergraduate environment. Maybe the basic reason that one is
attracted to Larouche -- a feeling of a lack of intellectual
stimuli within modern society and your peer group -- and the
faux-creation that Larouche has set up to meet those needs can
collide for a better, more aware and cultured, experience
post-Larouche. If that makes sense.
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
43
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 4:10 am: |
|
howie
Ok let us shift gears then! I hope you are still here because I
will make you understand the fundamental tenet to which the
overwhelming majority here do!
If you are reasonable then you will respond or reflect!
My good man can you in any way demonstrate, or show me original
source work documentation so as to support any claim based on
actually re-discovering how lyndon Larouche came to think and
analyze the way he does today?
Many here still believe that Lyn is a multitude of things, that he
is well a cult owner, a this or that! It is believe me a good
initial position to be in. BUT ONLY IF YOU USE THAT TO PROVE LYN
WRONG IN A NON SUBJECTIVE WAY THAT ALL OF US HERE CAN FOLLOW AND
REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION AS WELL.
Well I pose this question BECAUSE I am in the movement firsthand
and am not experiencing any of these things that people state
here?
Do I then simply believe what they say?
Because If you think so then your stance in this post is less than
insignificant!
So What we can all have access to is the pathway which larouche
does leave for all to come to understand what he does and the
implication of these things lyn says himself!
If he is a liar then Galileo Galilei did discover the earth at the
center of the universe. If he is a liar then Newton did discover
the calculus. If he is a liar then he did not make any fundamental
contribution of science which no one here understands in
principle.
So simply said Larouche then is a liar right, that is where you
are comming from right?
Then on your shoulders will sit a heavey burden soon!
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
44
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 6:24 am: |
|
howie
For how can you explain the correspondence from Kepler to Gallileo
in "The Life and Letters of Johannes Kepler"? Is this a
fluke in history?
Lets say it is I'll give to you! (trust me you need it but no more
grace!)
How can you then explain Kepler's New Astronomy which demonstrates
not only the proof for a heliocentric universe, elliptical orbits,
the first application ever of modern non empirical physics, the
first ever documented physics applied scientific method,and also
the demonstration of the first physically demonstrable universal
Physical Principle?
Oh but your burden grows heavier my foolish friend!
How can you then contest that Leibniz in his own letters which are
in the Aiton Biography, found Kepler's work tried to get them
massively printed (because at this time there were then attacks
against Leibniz from the royal society during the 1700's over the
Calculus) all in stark refutation of Newton because Newton had
claimed Kepler's discoveries for his own. Leibniz who was the real
founder of the Calculus, was able to do something new with his
discovery that Newton could not do with his to this day,
non-existent calculus. Leibniz was able to open up a new area of
physics, the study of transcendental curves! This was very crucial
because as some of the individuals in this forum understand all
that was being investigated beforehand were curves that you could
plot on a graph. Or in other words they were algebraically
derived. But these New curves could not be constructed
algebraically. They were non linear because they were not being
investigated on graphs but in reality (for those who love the
Riemann hints which says something about the curvature of space!)
SO now Physical curves could be mapped, all because of Kepler and
Leibniz!
Physics is to Leibniz Calculus as Infinite series is to Newton's
Calculus. That is why Newton's Calculus is considered a fake
because it was doing nothing different than what Archimedes was
doing back in the days of the ancients.
|
kheris
New member
Username:
kheris
Post Number:
3
Registered:
11-2004
Posted From:
76.193.189.106
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 7:24 am: |
|
Ask me something
of more credence that question is one I dont think will aid
beltran who is doing good work here lyn personally put beltran in
this position because of beltran's particular capability and
connection to the classical method.
Actually, the question wasn't asked to aid Beltran, since he
hardly needs help. Lyn put Beltran in charge of the drama
workshops because he happens to be the only classically trained
actor in the organization, having signed on in 2001 with Harley as
his recruiter. Name me one other person in the organization who
has the relevant background? Harley brought Beltran to the 2001
President's Day conference to showcase that background and
leverage it into his talk.
Which leads to another question; Beltran suggested long ago that a
traveling theater troupe (whimsically called The Traveling
Bombasts) would be put on the road to aid in organizing
people. Nothing since then besides more workshops. One does wonder
when, if ever, all this 'work' Beltran is doing will see the light
of day. Or is it simply to develop the LYMers themselves?
That is all that needs espousing... wait how do you know of
Harley Schlanger and what was he insulting you about a post that
you had talked about so long ago in old posts, or am I mistaken?
Harley emailed me after I posted an entry at my website about Lyn.
Harley made a point of suggesting that I might have some brains,
but in his view I was wasting them since I didn't 'get' Lyn. Yes,
he was insulting, but I have read enough of his work to believe
that he is a True Believer about Lyn's place in history, no matter
how overblown that concept may be.
|
shadok
Junior Member
Username:
shadok
Post Number:
26
Registered:
11-2006
Posted From:
86.6.4.234
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 7:35 am: |
|
Judaism as a
"Babylonian hoax"
Ok, the "cut & paster" strikes back... 
and for the record (this is from LL in "The secrets known
only to the Inner Elites" pp11-12):
"We now cite one related, important case here. We cite the
case of that influential hoax known as the Jewish religion.
The modern Jewish religion originated not with the Kingdom of
Solomon or earlier, but centuries later, as a synthetic cult
created by the order of the Babylonians and other non-Jews. The
first step in the fashioning of the Jewish religion was based on
piecing together scraps of Mesopotamian legends (and
anti-Phoenician and anti-Egyptian propaganda), with odd pieces of
actual Babylonian and other history added to the mixture. The
latter infusion gave a credible calendar to the otherwise
fraudulent concoction. This original Mesopotamian hoax was
reworked repeatedly, always under the supervision of non-Jews,
with the basic structure of the Old Testament hoax completed
during the Persian Empire period.
This hoax was first introduced into European languages about 230
BC, on the recommendation of the same Aristotelian Peripatetics
who contrived the exotic cults of Ptolemaic Egypt, and on orders
from the Ptolemies. That edition. of the "Seventy," is
otherwise notable for the fact that it was produced in a variety
of demotic Greek peculiar to such locations as the waterfront
brothels of Egypt.
Later, when Philo of Alexandria attempted to develop a Platonic
version of Judaism (the roots of the later Sephardic tradition of
Maimonides and Avencibrol), Philo avoided, for obvious political
reasons, simply throwing out the mess before him. He attempted to
circumvent the problem by the rabbinical, Pharasaical ruse of the
"commentary" tolerating the text while fundamentally
altering the reading to be attributed to it.
The Christian Apostles, confronted with the same general problem,
rid Christianity of the worst implications of the Old Testament by
emphasizing the "Dispensation of Christ," and warning
against the dangers of the circoncision." Christ had freed
man from such barbarisms as the Old Testament."
Alfred Rosenberg would have been delighted!
LL has always considered modern Judaism was "saved"
thanks to some "good" platonist/christian (and german)
influences. That s how you have to understand his stance in favor
of Philo, Maimonid or the "Yiddish renaissance". He
supports them because they were "enlightened" by this
superior platonist/Christian culture, never on its own merits.
That s why he tolerates jewish members in his organization; as
long as they are enlightened by Him... But if any of these jewish
members start questioning his authority, they will soon enough be
attacked as "Old Testament Jews"... He still considers
the Old Testament as a Babylonian hoax.
LL could write something connecting (thanks to the
"hereditary principle") the Synarchist Jewish bankers
(aka Rohatyn/ Al Gore gang) to their "babylonian
ancestors". Then he could develop a whole theory that would
connect the "Mesopotamian usurers" to their
"environmentalist" cults (aka Astarte/Ishtar etc) and
then... back to the "environmentalist" nazis and Malthus
and to the present "Whore of Babylon" (aka the Queen of
England) and her "environmentalist (nazi) usurers"
synarchist Rohatyn and Gore.... See? I could write his next memo!
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
45
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 8:24 am: |
|
Part two of Hey
howie
Know what was funny? When Newton's Calculus was ruled superior in
Britain they used that while the rest of Europe was convinced
Leibniz was the way to go. For 30 years Britain did not make any
contributions at all to science! But the rest of Europe
flourished! This was right after the royal society,review board
that oversaw the whole controversy over the Calculus, came to that
famous conclusion. We now know that Isaac Newton sat at the head
of the board that made that decision.
So why did you not get taught any of this in school? Why were you
taught about the discovery of gravity comming from an apple
falling on some oblivious siht head?
No not howie! Newton! yall C'mon that was a low blow yall!
Is it because Larouche is lying!
Yes my good friend The reductionist (individuals who dont care
about the discoveries just the equations that can be used to
calculate the effects of the discoveries) rodent Isaac Newton was
a fraud!
This of course is going to cause alarmists from all over to revolt
but John Maynard Kaynes documents the fraud of Isaac Newton. At
the same time Newton was supposed to have been making his
discoveries, his journals won over in an auction by John Maynard
Kaynes, showed time conflicts with when he allegedly made
breakthroughs in the aforementioned fields, and the work he was
doing in the occult. Yes Newton was a dire mystic! Mixing
Alchemical potions to turn rocks into Gold!
Thats Science!
Or Sorcery I forget which is which howie can you help me?!
But he's lying so we can ignore Larouche!
Now Larouche says kepler's method of approach was understood by
Leibniz and furthered is he wrong, see what Leibniz says about
Kepler in the biography!
Larouche also said Newton was a fraud, and it was not only that he
had plagarized heavily from Kepler but that the inverse square law
falls apart in the real universe!
Was he right! or is he a liar!
Ok howie If you dont get it by now it is going to take work to say
Larouche is wrong.
This is why personal anecdotes about Harley Schlanger increasing
the width of your arsecrack are not going to fly!
None of us even know if that was Harley, it could have been your
older brother, or a wayard priest or even a Transsexual mom.
All we see is a gay name like howie and we cant help but think
about how that could be a target in the real world!
So stick to what can be demonstrated!
Touche!
|
xlcr4life
Member
Username:
xlcr4life
Post Number:
87
Registered:
9-2005
Posted From:
66.229.112.220
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 8:27 am: |
|
Wow! I feel like I
am in the middle of a Tent show revival of a convicted preacher.
All I need next is to see TforT fall backward as Harley catches
him as the audience yells:
"Praise the Lyn"
Eaglebeak has a good point. For kids in college who find this
thread and wonder about the LYM, this is a like a scared straight
video about prison life. All that was requested was a comment
about Lyn and the Chris White brainwashing hoax. Nothing more. I
hear more name dropping of famous people than cable news converage
of Paris Hilton going back to jail in LA.
Brilliant satire, reminds me of the interview Max and Leo do with
Franz Liebkind, the unbalanced Nazi writer in Mel Brook's
"Spring Time for Hitler" movie. This is our own version
of "Spring Time for Larouche".
For the next web cast the LYM needs to run a crawler under Lyn as
he speaks which says:
"Don't be stupid, be a smarty / Come and join the Larouche
Party!"
You folks do know that Lyn viewed that movie as an example of his
version of capitalism?
xlcr4life@hotmail.com
|
charltonrom
Junior Member
Username:
charltonrom
Post Number:
42
Registered:
5-2007
Posted From:
72.16.145.82
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 8:50 am: |
|
Excellent howie my
man--- Lyn hoist on his own petard.
Not that it will do much good for Truth Timee, he/she/it is too
far gone, but it makes for a few more chuckles:
can you in any way demonstrate, or show me original source work
documentation so as to support any claim based on actually
re-discovering how lyndon Larouche came to think and analyze the
way he does today?
***See howie's post above. His own words! He is at times
apparently sincere but also a deleriously florid paranoiac
demagogue who endlessly propels new rhetorical projecta. I have a
phrase for it: CME, Continuous Methane Emission.
Many here still believe that Lyn is a multitude of things, that he
is well a cult owner, a this or that! It is believe me a good
initial position to be in. BUT ONLY IF YOU USE THAT TO PROVE LYN
WRONG IN A NON SUBJECTIVE WAY THAT ALL OF US HERE CAN FOLLOW AND
REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION AS WELL.
***If you are real, which we all still rather doubt, your
standards of proof and logic are so utterly laughable and
transparently cult-reinforcing that no evidence would be likely to
impact your degraded mindstate. Have you no shame? You are an
embarassment to the LYM, even by their sketchy standards.
Newton had claimed Kepler's discoveries for his own.
***He did no such thing. You are a gibbering, squawking parrot.
The entire organization and the LYM are an embarassment to
historians of the period. Read one source besides Bruce and Lyn.
Their take is ignorant and paranoid, if at least original. Yours
is merely a hilarious restatement, doubly ignorant since you not
only know nothing about the period but also rely on authorities
who know nothing or have an agenda.
For how can you explain the correspondence from Kepler to Gallileo
in "The Life and Letters of Johannes Kepler"? Is this a
fluke in history?
*** No. Why would it be? Oh I know, because in the letters, Kepler
revealed to Galileo that Copernicus was right! Then Galileo took
this up! And all because of the Venetians! Paolo Sarpi TOLD
Galileo to do it!!!
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
46
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 8:53 am: |
|
1st larouchies are
these people then were those people when the in your face
rambunctiousness is not of the dour color of how you have painted
the lym what will your readership think?
Well the reason I dont dialogue with you is because it can
accomplish nothing!
Though not satan I rather dont revel discussion with Beelzebub
either!
|
sancho
Junior Member
Username:
sancho
Post Number:
37
Registered:
8-2005
Posted From:
66.65.115.71
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 9:23 am: |
|
I subscribe to
eaglebeak's guess that Truth guy is a troll. But if he is as truly
demented as he appears, he can easily redeem himself by CLEARLY
explaining
(1) what LaRouche's method is, and what makes it distinctive;
(2) what LaRouche's "fundamental discovery" is.
These are very simple questions, and if Truth guy wants genuine
dialogue there can be no better starting point to a discussion on
these esoteric matters than a CLEAR response to each of these
questions. This is the third time I am asking for clarification,
and each time Truth guy just starts throwing names around rather
than ideas. We cannot refute NAMES, but only CONCEPTS. (Perhaps
that is part of Lyn's method, to evade ideas as much as possible
and to personalize issues so that they cannot be easily addressed
by the use of reason.)
If you don't reply clearly this time to what are questions
fundamental to your position, then I will know that either this is
all a brilliant hoax or you are in serious need of medical
intervention.
In any event, I will continue to enjoy the show!
|
eaglebeak
Junior Member
Username:
eaglebeak
Post Number:
41
Registered:
4-2007
Posted From:
162.84.73.112
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 9:25 am: |
|
I strongly suggest
to any blogger or website master that it would be worth the price
of admission to bottle and preserve timefor_truth. So, to
Skull/Bones, Mother Skadi, Dennis King--let us not lose TfT's
special qualities--if, heaven forbid, FACTNet should vanish, let
us make sure we have preserved TfT in all his/her glory.
Xlcr4life is right in comparing this to "Springtime for
Hitler." TfT can't be serious, so must be a joke.
The only question is whether TfT KNOWS he's a joke.
As I said before, I'm betting "yes."
But let's save this whole thread, and the one before it, too,
somewhere. Too good to lose.
I have a serious question for TfT: What do you say about Ken
Kronberg's suicide? Did the "X's" make that up, too, to
make LaRouche look bad? Or did Kronberg deserve it, because he was
a Boomer?
If you could get your head out of your Fractured Fairytales
version of the history of science, or whatever it is, to think
about the real world for a minute, and real people in the real
world, it would do you a passel of good. So give us your take on
that case.
Besides, you know you're not doing the LYM any favors by
twittering on the way you do, right?
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
47
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 9:30 am: |
|
***If you are real,
which we all still rather doubt, your standards of proof and logic
are so utterly laughable and transparently cult-reinforcing that
no evidence would be likely to impact your degraded mindstate.
Have you no shame? You are an embarassment to the LYM, even by
their sketchy standards.
alternative ro
"Im too far gone"! you sound like contemprary bulls--t
linkin Park alternative rock!
Ladies and gentlemen I have hit a sour note one of the worlds
greatest hoaxes of all time Isaac Newton! Is adored by charltonrom
his very hero will become a Latrine for this post when I am done!
But notice as a last claim he will supply no evidence of the
opposite just heated reactionary pomp like when a child gets
scared and urinates himself!
charltonrom
Ok contest this Newton In his first two editions of the Principia
How did he talk about Nascent quantities, give me quotes, How did
Leibniz talk about infinitessimals in his 1676 Leibniz oldenberg
correspondence? I HAVE THE WHOLE THING IF YOU WANT IT?
What does De Morgan Note!
Do this alone I swear It will be known the Fraud of Isaac
Newton!!!!!
HAVE YOU DONE THE WORK or have you just become the mouthpiece that
gave head to your professor in order for you to pass the class?
Is your professor in this forum are you afraid you'll get dick
slapped? Again and again!
Proof little sodomite pederast victim!
Proof!
I guess this one did not read the last words I left yesterday!
I asked all simply:
"So get your questions ready and tommorrow dont say anything
ANYTHING that you cant back up with:
1.Documentation,
2.An understanding where the method comes from
3.Why the particular instance you are citing is in the context of
whatever it is in, as well as how the context fits the author from
which you procured the information from.
For those idiots that still make baseless "personal
experience" attacks on Lyn I only ask that you not comment on
what Lyn says but why he says what he does with proof. I hope that
is Layman enough!"
Yet this still has Baseless!
You all act like lym members who have not done enough work and get
their arse handed to them by someone like George Soros at an
intervention!
BRING ME PROOF WHY CAN NONE DO THIS!
YOU KNOW WHAT WHY ARE'NT YOU ALL BRIANWASHED!
Lets start with this one! If you all cant prove something that you
have done work on but are speaking as experts on Larouche why is
that Not Brainwashed?
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
48
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 9:46 am: |
|
There is a hidden
agenda here!
I know it!
Save it let this exchange be immortalized I would love that more
than anything!!!
I have done what I came to do to make the principle shine through:
Once again that the patrons of evil deed here in this very forum
can not bring any proof that they have an understanding of Lyndon
Larouche and the youth movement I am apart of!
Furthermore what they have done is simply comment of what they see
as crazy and radical speech without doing the research into
whether what we said was the case or whether it was false. Since
the speech appeared too radical they felt safe to assume the
latter!
So at certain moments when you were willing to think I put the
brakes on and other times went to polemics to show you the folly
of your ways!
That is what all will see!
Why should I be worried!
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
49
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 10:48 am: |
|
I have told you
repeatedly in these posts what Larouche's method is but your ears
will not listen!
You dont want to do the work you want the easy way out the short
answer the cheat sheet!
What I can give you is this Larouchs method is to go to causes!
He goes to causes in every endeavor he undergoes and builds off of
that instead of like the empiricist and you all here in this forum
you go to what you see instead of what caused what you see!
Lyn's method is incredible because where you all write off history
and think it insignificant, we see it as absolutely necessary as
to what contributes to the quality of benevolence, hubris, and the
good.
All of you look at Lyn's words in a vacuum separated from where
they came from which is why EVERY SINGLE HYPOTHESIS IN HERE IS NO
WHERE CLOSE TO WHERE WE ARE AT AS A MOVEMENT. YOU ALL ARE KEEPING
YOURSELF IN THE DARK FROM WHAT IS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL MOVEMENT ON
THIS EARTH! But you do so willingly even though i still see no
good reason I wiil yield this topic because there are those with
malicious intent here and they are controlling the masses I now
see with Words of no basis that the masses can now cut through if
the so wanted!
But It's ok I am glad to have had the time to do these exchanges
to see where there is proofless mudslinging. They have yielded
what no other lym member has been able to give! A way outof this
shadowy domain....
ha ha
Steve and other X members are not well versed in approach they may
have read lyn but dont fundamentally understand ontology!
I have stated it lyn's method is to go to final causes.
Now for Larouche's discovery I understand it to a certain extent
it does deal with the hereditary principle but you cant read lyn
literally he may seem to be communicating literally but he
communicates transcendentally!
Once the hereditary Principle is understood outside of lyn's words
or memorized, then the individual just has to see where cognition
fits into the picture. One must also understand hypothesis, higher
hypothesis, and hypothesizing the higher hypotheses and to be able
to demonstrate a completely non-axiomatic theorem lattice so as to
create a foundation from which to build.
Larouche really communicates and speaks the most clearly when the
individual has done the work!
There I said it that is the secret I did not want to give but is
one that a select few will heed unbeknownst to the others!
I have as well laid out the foundations upon which I stand as
well!
The Uber beautiful universal principle can not be expounded upon
here but read Cusa!
I will wait for responses and take my final leave. Mastering these
great secrets of the universe yields an indescribable state of
beauty!Whether many think I am brainwashed or not does not bother
me! What I will do with my actions in the future will serve the
God Almighty through his son Christ to the fullest extent by using
this unique in history "brainwashing" in order to create
qualitative up shifts in the living quality of all man. And that
is worth being stipendless! Ha ha!
Ok now where to next? hmm open the floor to debate I guess!
Oh and Believe me I am no where near the intellectual capability
as some of my colleagues!
Ok
|
charltonrom
Junior Member
Username:
charltonrom
Post Number:
43
Registered:
5-2007
Posted From:
72.16.145.82
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 10:54 am: |
|
What can one
possibly say to this?
Clearly I am outclassed. I bow before Lyn, but even more before
you. Your mastery of the Pure Method of Truth is nothing short of
spectacular.
|
shadok
Junior Member
Username:
shadok
Post Number:
27
Registered:
11-2006
Posted From:
86.6.4.234
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 10:56 am: |
|
sancho, eaglebeak...
I would disagree with you, I think that timefor_truth is a LYM-er,
that he is a typical representative of the cult as it has become
now. He/she reminds me this other nutcake, LYM-er Jason Ross who
once called for "burning the textbooks"...
You know, madness or insanity, just like any STD's, is a
communicable disease...
I simply hope that after their Kepler's sessions, the yutes go to
the bathroom wash their hands... ;)
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/fall%202003/burn.pdf
|
cwhite
New member
Username:
cwhite
Post Number:
1
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
81.154.227.216
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 11:00 am: |
|
Thanks for making
these threads. Really amazing there's so much info and discussion
going on.
I personally have been 'following' the LR movement for the last
five years or so. I remember the point I got really interested was
during the '04 election when he was talking about strategy and
Kerry - I'd been anti-Dean and pro-Kerry who I'd supported all
along and predicted would win the primaries.
I participated in a discussion on the internet with a YLM who
semi-subscribed me (for free) to the EIR for a short while. It
ended because I always refused to give money or my home phone
number which must have irritated them.
A bunch of different people contacted me via email - doing the
same thing. Any time I've tried to get into a discussion (about
things LR said) they've answered condescendingly or angrily saying
to 'put my money where my mouth is-who's side are you on?' and
commit. They mostly tried to pressure through this guy from the
German organization who's half-English... I don't know what they'd
want me to do since they
Is there any English LR-movement to speak of? LR's anti-British
sentiment although theoretically justified, seems way over the top
emotionally, and from looking through the old Campaigners,
something that developed very suddenly in mid-70s.
Funny thing is that I live in the United Kingdom and my full name
is exactly the same as the guy who ran off with LR's wife.
But LR himself is a mess. I agree with the general principles
(most of the economics, the history, the classical
humanism/culture) the egomania/personality cult is clearly a major
problem.
|
timefor_truth
Junior Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
50
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 11:03 am: |
|
No need, no need you
are your own man bow before your creator only!
|
sancho
Junior Member
Username:
sancho
Post Number:
38
Registered:
8-2005
Posted From:
66.65.115.71
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 11:04 am: |
|
Regardless of
whether he is serious or not, any prospective LYMer will be scared
away by this individual.
Thank you for admitting you don't know what LaRouche's
"fundamental discovery" is/was. I agree that
investigation cannot be satisfied without inquiring after final
causes, but one does not have to follow a cult leader and
convicted felon to do that.
Since you emphasize the importance of history, do us the kindness
of addressing the Ken Kronberg suicide. Or is that just one
expendable boomer (and Jew) over whose body the bright faces of
the young Keplers walk on the shining path to Wahrheit?
|
timefor_truth
Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
51
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 11:13 am: |
|
Words words for what
are they sans life?
|
xlcr4life
Member
Username:
xlcr4life
Post Number:
88
Registered:
9-2005
Posted From:
66.229.112.220
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 11:19 am: |
|
This is great
material. If any college frat or sorority wants to do something
funny, consider doing a short sketch called'
"Spring Time for Larouche"
You can get a ton of material from this site and it will be
preserved if it goes off of factnet.
First, get a very tall actor and put a fake big head on him for
authenticity.
You can have another scene right out of the movie "Ed
Wood" where Lyn sits in a big chair and contemplates what to
do after most of the membership leaves except for the Leesburg
deadenders. I saw this scene in the movie and with a few changes,
it works.
Go the middle of this and see Martin Landau in the chair.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.the-reel-mccoy.com/movies/classics/images/EdWood3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.the-reel-mccoy.com/movies/classics/EdWood.html&h=301&w=318&sz=21&hl=en&start=8&um=1&tbnid=8S0dlchAHlE5qM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ded%2Bwood%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG
Here is the original and with just ONE change in the script, it is
worthy of a Larouche WEB broadcast show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cE1fzfOogo
Watch the Martin Landau version form "Ed Wood" and It
could be a meeting between Lyn and an NEC/NC member after getting
out of prison.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9J-er8vXTs
Here is the dialogue at the 44 second mark which is too funny.
"...Home? I have no home. Hunted, despised, living like an
animal! The jungle is my home. But I will show the world that I
can be its master! I will perfect my own race of people. A race of
atomic superyutes which will conquer the world!"
With a little editing, can someone take the Martin Landau speech
and mix it on a larouche web cast video exerpt for youtube? We can
have fun all day with this.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com
|
timefor_truth
Member
Username:
timefor_truth
Post Number:
52
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
24.206.69.241
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 11:28 am: |
|
Sure I agree you
dont have to go to lyn directly,but it's the fastest way!
Go ahead circumvent Lyn, but just realize if he did make a
fundamental contribution then you have to eventually go through
him!
Choose your route either way just leave the baseless unprovable
method behind!
I implore you all to do as much investigate the why not the what,
And see if the why contradicts the universe or Man's inherent
disposition and cognitive capability or another word for reality!
God Bless you all in your pursuits of truth!
My time has passed but the time for the absolute truth never does,
therein lies the secret to understanding Universal Principle.
I bid thee A Christian Humanist
Farewell!
|
earnest_one
New member
Username:
earnest_one
Post Number:
5
Registered:
6-2007
Posted From:
69.207.169.246
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 11:29 am: |
|
TFT:
The method that you practice works with people who are ignorant
and uneducated and looking for a fast and easy way to feel
superior.
It relies upon a deluge of words rather than thoughts. LaRouche
does NOT use language to communicate ideas; neither do you. This
is easily proven. Here is some (real world) evidence:
The proposed ratio (# of references to the existence of Universal
Physical Principles divided by the # of examples/explanations of
Universal Physical Principles) is a real world measurement. You
can perform the measurement yourself!
It measures the insincerity of people who speak and write and
speak and write and speak and write and speak and write about
Universal Physical Principles without explaining anything or
providing insight into anything.
I mean insight relative to the quantity of words.
Ranting that Newton is a fraud doesn't allow you to calculate
integrals, solve differential equations, or build useful devices.
It is masturbation that never yields ANYTHING precious. It goes on
and on and on and on.
LaRouche cannot come. He is stuck in the pre-adolescent phase. He
has never produced any substance worthy of the effort. Public
masturbation without the money shot.
People keep waiting for some substance. It never comes because he
cannot come.
|
shadok
Junior Member
Username:
shadok
Post Number:
28
Registered:
11-2006
Posted From:
86.6.4.234
|
| Posted
on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 11:38 am: |
|
In fact
timefor_truth's fantasy world reminds me what the neoplatonists
were like in the 17thC onwards... trying to uncover the
"Mysterium Cosmologicum" by way of Pythagoras et al This
led to esoteric/wacky research by other neoplatonists like John
Donne, G Bruno... It was the beginning of so-called secret
societies, freemasonry etc... Astrology was never far away.
Kepler indeed was not just an astronomer, he was also an
astrologer, drew at least 800 horoscopes, wrote many books on this
topic (like "On the more certain foundations of
astrology", in 1601), plus many prognostications
("forecasts", rings a bell?). He was appointed both as
astronomer and official astrologer to the court of Rudolf II.
timefor_truth, typically believes in this "secret upper
knowledge" known only to the "Inner elites". He
believes that you reach "truth" away from mere
(inferior) empirical facts (or from common people like us, the
masses etc). His experience of "truth" is like a
"mystical-religious" experience. He, unlike us poor
mortals, has seen the "light".
It is not about science, it is about mystique.
Thank you timefor_truth, you have entertained us.
http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/keplerastrol.html
http://cura.free.fr/docum/15kep-en.html |