LaRouche continued 6

[dking]

Since the new "Ace" blog (masquerading as a "Justice for Jeremiah" blog)has just slimed the great Erin Belcher, suggesting she is brain dead and providing a list of medications she might be on, I'm posting here her hilarious 2003 article on her weekend at a LaRouche indoctrination camp:

Summer camp, LaRouche-style

"Then I shouted, 'That is not the point! These two got picked on for what they were wearing and that wasn't right!' I was shouting, I was standing up on the bunks."


By Erin Belcher
Aug 19, 2003

I am probably more protective of the fundamental concept of freedom of expression than most Americans, than most artists, who haven't "made it." I've had it challenged, even threatened, not really as an artist, but on a more personal level more than once.
I can tell you, it's very scary, and sad to be cornered, have someone demand that you tell them a joke, and it's not simply that they didn't get the joke, or find it funny, or that they just don't like the way you look. They have an agenda to see no value in your humor, and convince you that you were never really a humorist, or any type of artist at all.

No, this is not an audition. It's just me, getting involved in politics, and daring to tell some young, wannabe politicians I'm a stand-up comic, and I live in Santa Monica, and I go to Santa Monica College part-time and take classes that I think will help me with my comedy. Daring to be real, to tell them the truth about myself, when appropriate.

I tell them I'm here to learn what they're about. Now it would stand to reason, that they would be just as straight with me, and connect with me like the civilized human beings they claim to be, and convince me why I should support Lyndon LaRouche for President?

But instead, a lot of them set out first to attack my identity, break it down, and convince me to join the campaign full-time and have no part of what they call the "degenerative culture." The smart ones knew they were no less products of that culture than I was.

Towards the end of July, I spent a weekend with them in Big Bear Lake. I'd never been there before. I'd never seen the California Redwoods. I listened to LaRouche's speech. I paid attention, except for the part where I fell asleep because someone in my cabin had decided to wake everyone up at 5:15 a.m. because she didn't want anyone to miss breakfast, which was at 7:30. Of course, I was wrong to fall asleep. If I really belonged there, I would have stayed awake throughout the whole speech.

A couple of people seemed to have a problem with me missing some of the classes and going out for a damn walk once in a while. "We didn't come here to look at trees," they said. I told one of them that I needed exercise, which I knew I did, because I'm in tune with my body and I know when I need to go for a walk.

He said in a very hateful manner, "If you want to exercise, go to your spa"--as if he knows I go to a spa, and if I did, there would be something wrong with going to a spa. It was a sign of an attitude that could seep in to this particular group mind as PC, that exercise is wrong. I said nothing and gave him a dirty look. Why should I dignify such an ignorant and hateful statement with a response. Let it be their problem, that's my AXIOM.

LaRouche even says POPULAR OPINION IS ALWAYS WRONG, yet they won't examine the popular opinions of the group, turn against everyone who isn't them, and expect to get LaRouche elected president that way. They're wrong. I was staying in the cabin they had for women only. There were two young women there who were even less exposed to the dogma than I was.

I understand that LaRouche, while he may be a great leader, is an old man. I don't mean anything negative by this. I'm just stating fact. He is a tired old man. I can tell by his writings that he knows this. He founded the youth movement in order to see his life's work completed.

Now, in his speech, at the weekend at Big Bear Lake--a Cadre School, they call it (cadre is Spanish or Latin for leadership, they told me)--he was going off on one of many tangents about the degenerative culture, and how he's tired of seeing people going around displaying their crotches, whatever that means.

I think he said something about people cutting out the crotches of their pants, so their crotches would show. He said he's tired of seeing crotch displays. I believe him. A couple of women in the group, seemed to take this as a cue to angrily order these two young women in the cabin I was staying in to change their clothes.

Both [were] good-hearted human beings who were there to learn about LaRouche, and had souls when they went in, and also happened to have asses, and legs, and some people got very upset about that. My friend Jane wears pants that are ripped in the butt.

Another girl was wearing a short skirt. There could have been a kind way to tell her that you could see up it when she's sitting, and to tell her she might want to be careful how she sits in it, or suggest that she wear leggings or tights with it. But she was viciously ordered to change into something else by a woman who is uncomfortable with her own sexuality, and wants other women to be ashamed of their bodies, and to just cover up. This is another PC group mentality gone wrong, or out of balance.

Possible escape routes from Big Bear Lake (compliments of the Resistance Movement).

These two young women in the cabin were both upset that they were harassed based on what they were wearing. I was upset too. I knew how they felt. I got out one of my T-shirts and said, "I'm going to cut holes in this shirt so my boobs are showing!" Inspiration. Where, indeed, would we be without PC?

It was one of those moments where I felt guided by an unseen force, not necessarily outside of myself. It was an old Miss Saigon T-shirt. Yes, I'm a product of a degenerative culture. And as my high school history teacher used to say: "If I'm going to have the name, I'm going to have the game."

As I started cutting the holes, Shortskirtgirl said, "Oh, my god, you're really going to do it!" I was their hero that night, if I do say so myself. Buttgirl, Shortskirtgirl, and myself, Boobgirl, talked amongst ourselves briefly and tried to come up with a strategy for when confronted with the questions that we knew would come when we arrived at the campsite, such as "What does that prove?" "What is that doing to help us?" and my personal favorite, "What is that doing to help humanity?" (Uh, we're human. It helps us.)

It wasn't long before one of the censors burst into the cabin. She'd heard signs of laughter, human emotion, and people expressing themselves coming from there. She couldn't allow it.

She asked what we were doing. I explained to her that I had cut holes in my T-shirt so my boobs were showing. As she could see, I was wearing a black cotton bra underneath, and there was nothing inherently indecent about this, by the standards of the culture we live in, and I felt no need to explain this to her. The censor asked something along the lines of what does that prove, or what is that doing to help us, and Buttgirl said, "We knew this would come up..." and started to attempt to explain.
The censor cut in and said it was "just sensory." To this, I wanted to scream, JUST SENSORY?????? I'd heard enough of this bull****, about how senses were nothing and intellect was everything.

LaRouche had even talked in his speech that morning about how the senses and cognition worked together. It seemed to me that I was the ONLY one who paid attention in the classes and lectures and to LaRouche's speeches. I knew the senses and cognition worked together, and mine do when someone isn't blocking this ability by telling me to COGNATE EVERYTHING and SENSE NOTHING, because "You can't trust your sense perception"--several Lyndon LaRouche representatives, who in no way know how to talk to a human being, much less run a revolution.

Then the censor pointed her finger at me and said "You're a product of a degenerative culture--"

I said, "Yeah. I've created a whole new degenerative look!" I was proud, and still am.
Everything she said only served to feed the chaotic energy that had been building up in me all weekend, which was really just one day, one very long day, of a bunch of *******s trying to force interest in something I was already plenty interested in, because to them, I just could never be interested enough if I didn't do everything LaRouche says.

Anyway, I think that's when she said it was "just sensory," and asked, "Do you want the men here to see you as body parts?", implying first, that I have no clue what it's like to have men look at me as body parts and nothing else, yeah, yeah, it sucks. Also implying that it's my fault if a man looks at me in a way that she deems to be inappropriate. And actually, I'm single, and human beings who are unattached, unlike the 80+ year old Lyndon LaRouche, who is married and has a family, generally would like to attract a mate.

I've been coming to campaign meetings for a couple of months now. I've made a first impression already, as have they. Is drawing a little attention to my breasts really the worst thing I could do? I did think about it, but only for a second. Then I shouted, "That is not the point! These two got picked on for what they were wearing and that wasn't right!" I was shouting, I was standing up on the bunks.

This had been building up in me for a good couple of months. I had been hearing them out. I was telling the censor what to think, instead of listening this time. She judged and questioned whether this was really fun for me. She tried to convince me I only thought it was fun. She said it wouldn't be fun for very long. I told her she'd be surprised how long this could be fun for me. What she did not know is that I kick ass.

She said that our mothers burned their bras, and asked if I wanted to go down to the barbecue pit and burn my bra. I yelled, "I can't burn my bra, I have holes in my T-shirt!" Besides, my mother never burned her bra. If she did, she never told me anything about it. My parents were Republicans back then. Bra-burning is so 50 years ago.

If I had changed my shirt, and burned my bra, as the censor said I was welcome to do, what would that prove? It would prove that I allow my own ideas to be destroyed and I do what I'm told. It would prove, that, no, I don't care that my friends were viciously attacked based on their surface appearances, and that I was told I was not a comedian. That I was not an artist.

It would prove that everyone there who had tuned out what the very curriculum they worship says about the human potential, and failed to see it in me till I proved myself to them, were right. That they were right not to give me the benefit of the doubt, but to question everything I said and expect me to automatically follow along with everything they said.

It would prove that blondes are dumb.
-----------------

Note by DK: The above was originally posted at Blogcritics.org and has been edited very lightly for inclusion here with illustrations selected by myself. More of Erin Belcher's comments regarding the cult were posted on Factnet in 2005, by which time she was thoroughly disillusioned with LaRouche. See several of her Factnet postings at http://www.factnet.org/discus/messag...tml?1140256983 (the most important appeared in September 2005--see especially the one posted on September 10 at 8:07 PM). They are listed under her user name "erin_b" but she often signed her full name at the end of the text.

Ms. Belcher noted in a Sept 14, 2005 posting that LaRouche was not actually present at the 2003 cadre camp; he addressed it by telecast and, among other things, compared himself to Jesus Christ, she recalled.

[Xandufar]

I knew Erin Belcher when she was coming to LaRouche meetings. I tried to be particularly friendly to her because she seemed very uncomfortable in social situations. I was there when she had a severe tantrum in the office that shocked and befuddled everyone who witnessed it. It turned out that she had been hiding severe psychological problems, and that she was being heavily medicated. I honestly felt sorry for her, and I wish I could have helped, regardless of anything to do with LaRouche. I tried, and failed.

I'm just wondering Mr. King, seeing that you and I disagree fundamentally on LaRouche, how do you suggest I change my core beliefs? I think of myself as a Christian, though my theology usually conflicts with modern forms of Christianity. I believe man is fundamentally good. I believe ideas are good or bad depending upon whether they ultimately advance or hinder human development, and I believe LaRouche is probably the greatest living philosopher. That's right, the greatest living philosopher. I count that as a core belief.

I'm certain you disagree with me. In fact, you probably think I'm a sycophant for saying such a thing, even though I haven't been working for LaRouche in several years. However, we all have core beliefs, even if we don't believe in much of anything extraordinary. Most Americans probably don't even have a favorite philosopher. They might have a favorite baseball player instead.

But you're an educated man. Surely you have core beliefs that are far more developed than average. You must have a favorite philosopher. You might even have a favorite living philosopher, though I would question whether you have the courtesy to say who it might be. I'm sure you understand me, somewhat at least, in your own way, because you know I like LaRouche. Please allow me the courtesy of understanding you, at least potentially, in a similar way.

[dking]

Xandufar, I have to show a little humility here. I spent over a decade of my life, beginning when I was about 20 (I'm 70 now), thinking Lenin was the answer to everything. For about three years of that time I even thought Mao was top dog, better even than Lenin, and went around trying to divide everything into primary contradictions and secondary contradictions, struggle of opposites, etc. So I guess I can't fault you for thinking LaRouche is this great mind.

The best answer is that there is no "greatest living philosopher"--the very idea is an illusion. Life and the universe are too complicated for any one thinker to encompass it all or get at the essence of things (I mean the essence of human things, of society--physicists are making progress on the essence of physical reality). Hegel was the last to try it, and he didn't succeed any better than the earlier ones.

LaRouche presents himself as this genius who has the last word on political economy, music, art, literature, drama, history, political science, philosophy, linguistics, psychoanalysis, and on and on. How could he possibly know all these things? People who used to work for him say they'd do the research and then he'd fit it into a nonsense system. Eaglebeak has done a good job of documenting just how appallingly ignorant he is of some of the subjects he pontificates on (like confusing Celtic Britain with Anglo-Saxon England). In recent research I found shocking errors in his remarks about 19th century U.S. history. This doesn't mean he's stupid, but that he's merely limited, like the rest of us. I personally think that if he'd concentrated on one field, got the necessary credentials, really done his homework, he would have accomplished something extraordinary--but he fell into the job of being a cult leader instead. And I fell into the job of chronicling his machinations as the world's greatest practitioner of Orwellian doublethink.

Anyway, back to philosophers--or thinkers (NOT doublethinkers) would be a better word here. C.S. Lewis has probably had the greatest influence on me--and if you want a good reason to ease out of the LaRouche ideology, just read Lewis' essay on the lure of the Inner Ring, and how wanting to belong to an inner ring makes very good people do very bad things.

I think The Physics of Immortality by the theoretical physicist and Christian, Frank J. Tipler, is an extraordinary book, and I go around telling everyone to read it. But then, Tipler wrote a followup, The Physics of Christianity, in which he tries to explain the Shroud, the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection in terms of quantum tunneling--this seemed to me a bit nuts, frankly. But what should I expect? A guy writes one great book and then does it over and over? And always infallibly?

I think a good antidote to Leninism or LaRoucheism or a lot of other closed systems out there, is to read about the coming Singularity and about the Many Worlds Theory of quantum physics. The idea of the Singularity, when computers become self-aware, computers and people merge into a cyber-human society, and people upload into virtual reality worlds--all this is coming within the next 50 to 100 years and all the old ideologies, including LaRouche's, will seem pretty irrelevant.

And just as this idea of the Singularity expands our view of the future, so the MWT expands our view of all reality, a near-infinite number of parallel universes. This is close to being the dominant view in physics now, and David Deutsch is on its cutting edge, in quantum computing research. Again, it makes closed systems seem so petty.

The thing I like best about C.S. Lewis is that he presents Christianity in a way that is NOT a closed system. Perhaps you've read his best known apologetics, but make sure you haven't missed The Great Divorce, his novel about a man who wakes up in Hell--it's a gloomy grey suburb where petty people spend their time complaining about their lives, their dislikes, their enemies. The suburb keeps expanding with each resident's home moving farther and farther away from the bus stop that can take you to the border of Paradise. Over time people will become located so far from the bus stop that they can't possibly reach it, if indeed they even remember the bus exists.

When I reread it recently, I asked myself--is this what life in the LaRouche cult is like? Probably not, LaRouche would find a way to dress it up in doublethink and Newspeak and call it Heaven.

Anyway, my apologies for taking an excessively harsh tone with you in our recent exchanges. Fighting Ace for over a month here has made me hypervigilant. I should have taken a break of a week or two after his/her/its expulsion.

P.S. Regarding your remarks on Erin Belcher: A cult once tried to recruit me. They were very weird. I didn't know what was happening but I had bad vibes. So? My preconscious mind took over. I threw a tantrum. They didn't want me around after that. The perfect escape, even without a map provided by the Resistance Movement. Good for Erin.

[European]

Well I read Peter and wonder if there is a moderator on this thread? With a moderator perhaps more people would dare to come forward and participate? And, above all, they would perhaps want to continue to post here?

Anyway, thanks for welcoming me back Peter!

;-)

On what Dennis King said, about listening to the mother and father. Well... It is not unusual that the parents have NO idea about what their children does. In case of a cult they VERY seldom have a clue about why their children joins a cult or wants to join one...

I would recommend the books by Stephen Hassan. They are good. He is a good anti-cult expert.

/T

[poe]

Hey, good luck on your efforts.

The US could use a lively and effective 3rd or 4th party that could seriously suck some air out of the Dems and Repubs, but it will be doggone tough going to make that happen.

This may be off-topic, but since you raise it, in order to make that possible, we need to have instant run-off voting, like some countries do. Too many people vote for what they view as "the lessor of two evils" instead of for what they believe. If we had a system where there was a run-off election between the top two vote getters in the first election, then I think 3rd parties like the Greens and the Libertarians, and even Independents would start to win elections.

[Xandufar]

Xandufar, I have to show a little humility here. I spent over a decade of my life, beginning when I was about 20 (I'm 70 now), thinking Lenin was the answer to everything. For about three years of that time I even thought Mao was top dog, better even than Lenin, and went around trying to divide everything into primary contradictions and secondary contradictions, struggle of opposites, etc. So I guess I can't fault you for thinking LaRouche is this great mind.

The best answer is that there is no "greatest living philosopher"--the very idea is an illusion. Life and the universe are too complicated for any one thinker to encompass it all or get at the essence of things (I mean the essence of human things, of society--physicists are making progress on the essence of physical reality). Hegel was the last to try it, and he didn't succeed any better than the earlier ones.

LaRouche presents himself as this genius who has the last word on political economy, music, art, literature, drama, history, political science, philosophy, linguistics, psychoanalysis, and on and on. How could he possibly know all these things? People who used to work for him say they'd do the research and then he'd fit it into a nonsense system. Eaglebeak has done a good job of documenting just how appallingly ignorant he is of some of the subjects he pontificates on (like confusing Celtic Britain with Anglo-Saxon England). In recent research I found shocking errors in his remarks about 19th century U.S. history. This doesn't mean he's stupid, but that he's merely limited, like the rest of us. I personally think that if he'd concentrated on one field, got the necessary credentials, really done his homework, he would have accomplished something extraordinary--but he fell into the job of being a cult leader instead. And I fell into the job of chronicling his machinations as the world's greatest practitioner of Orwellian doublethink.

Anyway, back to philosophers--or thinkers (NOT doublethinkers) would be a better word here. C.S. Lewis has probably had the greatest influence on me--and if you want a good reason to ease out of the LaRouche ideology, just read Lewis' essay on the lure of the Inner Ring, and how wanting to belong to an inner ring makes very good people do very bad things.

I think The Physics of Immortality by the theoretical physicist and Christian, Frank J. Tipler, is an extraordinary book, and I go around telling everyone to read it. But then, Tipler wrote a followup, The Physics of Christianity, in which he tries to explain the Shroud, the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection in terms of quantum tunneling--this seemed to me a bit nuts, frankly. But what should I expect? A guy writes one great book and then does it over and over? And always infallibly?

I think a good antidote to Leninism or LaRoucheism or a lot of other closed systems out there, is to read about the coming Singularity and about the Many Worlds Theory of quantum physics. The idea of the Singularity, when computers become self-aware, computers and people merge into a cyber-human society, and people upload into virtual reality worlds--all this is coming within the next 50 to 100 years and all the old ideologies, including LaRouche's, will seem pretty irrelevant.

And just as this idea of the Singularity expands our view of the future, so the MWT expands our view of all reality, a near-infinite number of parallel universes. This is close to being the dominant view in physics now, and David Deutsch is on its cutting edge, in quantum computing research. Again, it makes closed systems seem so petty.

The thing I like best about C.S. Lewis is that he presents Christianity in a way that is NOT a closed system. Perhaps you've read his best known apologetics, but make sure you haven't missed The Great Divorce, his novel about a man who wakes up in Hell--it's a gloomy grey suburb where petty people spend their time complaining about their lives, their dislikes, their enemies. The suburb keeps expanding with each resident's home moving farther and farther away from the bus stop that can take you to the border of Paradise. Over time people will become located so far from the bus stop that they can't possibly reach it, if indeed they even remember the bus exists.

When I reread it recently, I asked myself--is this what life in the LaRouche cult is like? Probably not, LaRouche would find a way to dress it up in doublethink and Newspeak and call it Heaven.

Anyway, my apologies for taking an excessively harsh tone with you in our recent exchanges. Fighting Ace for over a month here has made me hypervigilant. I should have taken a break of a week or two after his/her/its expulsion.

P.S. Regarding your remarks on Erin Belcher: A cult once tried to recruit me. They were very weird. I didn't know what was happening but I had bad vibes. So? My preconscious mind took over. I threw a tantrum. They didn't want me around after that. The perfect escape, even without a map provided by the Resistance Movement. Good for Erin.

I used to be a prolific reader. I read Shakespeare, Plato, and Homer, for example, even before I heard of LaRouche. I read the Bible from cover to cover without any church-going to cloud my journey. I would read a lot of the good stuff during Summer break when I was going to university.

Among the things I studied, and took a particular interest in, was Middle Eastern politics. It wasn't until I met friends of LaRouche that I realized how limited my education was on that particular subject. The veil was lifted. One of the first pieces I read from LaRouche was The Science of Christian Economy, and I was thoroughly impressed. I didn't have to be recruited. I joined.

I spent a great deal of my spare time reading great classics--Aeschylus, Sophocles, Herodotus, Thuycidides, Chaucer, Rabelais, Boccacio, etc., etc. I was one of the most prolific, if not the most prolific reader in the organization. I would read all that stuff, plus a lion's share of the stuff we would publish. I read just about every old LaRouche book, and nearly everything he wrote during my tenure, but I assure you I'm not just a bookish nerd. I recently finished building my own house, debt free, with my own two hands, for example.

I never found much attraction in leftist politics. The only thing I ever read from C.S. Lewis was Mere Christianity, and that was long before I met LaRouche. I recently read a couple books to get updated on breakthroughs in theoretical physics, so I'm not completely uniformed. I don't read much anymore, but I still find the idea that "computers [will] become self-aware" to be ridiculous. It's one of those things that will always be pursued and never realized, much like abiogenesis.

I'm not exactly a young man anymore, so I think I've earned the right to express my thoughts when I believe there is a good reason to do so. Being a LaRouchie was hard work. Organizing was often dull, monotonous, and frustrating. I learned that organizing poorly was perfectly miserable, but organizing well was great fun.

I still haven't read much of anything from you that jibes with what I know to be true. I wouldn't deny that LaRouche runs a "cult", though I would take exception to the idea that a "cult" is necessarily bad. Christianity started off as a "cult". Much of what you profess is based on the idea that the LaRouche "cult" is systemically coercive and abusive. That's not true. Personally, the only real pressure I experienced in the organization came from within. Anything that anyone can criticize about the internal dynamics of the organization are not unique. Many occupations or endeavours are surely much more difficult. Your purported exceptions from decades long past, and/or anecdotes will not change the basic facts.

[European]

Here is my statement about Jeremiah.

http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.co...ah-duggan.html

You might disagree or not, but this is what I saw. And I have always blamed Lyndon LaRouche for what happened. The movement is a cult and sometimes cult methods (ego stripping) do terrible things to people.

/Torbjörn

[dking]

On what Dennis King said, about listening to the mother and father. Well... It is not unusual that the parents have NO idea about what their children does. In case of a cult they VERY seldom have a clue about why their children joins a cult or wants to join one...

It would appear that ultimately Jeremiah did NOT want to join a cult. He called his girl friend and said he was fed up and was coming home. He called his mother and said he was in big trouble. That's when he ended up dead.

[dking]

On what Dennis King said, about listening to the mother and father. Well... It is not unusual that the parents have NO idea about what their children does. In case of a cult they VERY seldom have a clue about why their children joins a cult or wants to join one...

It would appear that ultimately Jeremiah did NOT want to join a cult. He called his girl friend and said he was fed up and was coming home. He called his mother and said he was in big trouble. That's when he ended up dead.

And you're leaving out my main point. The LaRouchians claimed that Jeremiah was on drugs and had a history of mental illness. The parents from the beginning said this was not true--and were able to prove their case to the satisfaction of the coroner's inquest. If the parents were right on those points, maybe they were right that he would not have committed suicide (and the first inquest also rejected the German police's suicide finding, by the way).

Are you willing to accept the POSSIBILITY that Jeremiah was beaten, chased, even murdered?

Do you think that cults never get violent with stubborn young people who resist the recruitment process?

[Kellezi]

I still haven't read much of anything from you that jibes with what I know to be true. I wouldn't deny that LaRouche runs a "cult", though I would take exception to the idea that a "cult" is necessarily bad. Christianity started off as a "cult".

There are some big differences.

1. Cults are almost always self-defeating. When they get too big, the leader loses control. To retain control, the leader expels potential rivals or "rowdy" members.
2. Cult leaders tend to live a parasitical existence. LaRouche lives nicely while his followers work like dogs and are told of the imminent collapse of civilization as we know it.
3. Jesus was fairly egalitarian in his activities and to our knowledge didn't brainwash people. He didn't subject them to "card table shrines" (as xlcr would put it.)
4. Jesus was a religious leader. I recall that it was Ace who pretty much explicitly compared LaRouche to Jesus and LaRouche Youth (more or less) as akin to Jesus' disciples. I find those two things to be odd comparisons. Leaving aside false Prophets (and I'd rather LaRouche remain a fairly secular figure like he is now), LaRouche basically just claims to be an exceptionally great economist and a would-be skilled politician. I can't really recall any great economist or politician having a cult.

I think it makes more sense to call Jesus and his followers a sect rather than a cult.

[European]

In criminal och invastigative research one should not assume things beforehand. BUT In all my years with the movement, and in all the days I spent with the organization I NEVER saw anyone that did beat another person. I saw plenty of verbal abuse, HORRIBLE verbal abuse, but never beating. And the youngsters at the conference 2003 were, as all LYM-members, always told NOT to use violence.

I cant lie and tell other things than what I saw! So please accept that or do not accept that!

And... I regard the verbal abuse as the clue to what happened to Jeremiah. I blame the organization, Lyndon first and foremost.

I dont know about if he was on drugs or not, he might, and he might not. The parents very seldom knows if a kid at the university uses it or not.

All I can say is that he did not feel well, he had a very "black" worldview, as I tell in the statement: http://american-lycurgus.blogspot.co...ah-duggan.html It is NOT based on second hand sources but what I heard when speaking to him.

And yes, he certainly changed his mind about the organization. He reacted to the false optimism of the cult and wanted to leave Wiesbaden. It must have accellerated after I met him.

But you will not get a story about antisemitism and nazis from me because all I could see at the moment was that the movement "organized" against nazis and antisemites. (!)

I participated at the 2003 conference and the theme of the conference was, as far as I remember, to stop the the conservative revolution. I.e. LOTS iof speeches attacking nazis and nazi-ideas.


(And yes, I know that the movement had antisemitic ideas too. It is quite complex. Lots of Jewish, russian and Brittish conspiracies!)

/T

PS

The LaRouchemovement is a bit more complex that a neonazi movement! As I repeatedly have said: any comparison between nazis and the LaRouchies backfires. Because there are so many jews and people from all over the world in the movement!

[Xandufar]

There are some big differences.

1. Cults are almost always self-defeating. When they get too big, the leader loses control. To retain control, the leader expels potential rivals or "rowdy" members.
2. Cult leaders tend to live a parasitical existence. LaRouche lives nicely while his followers work like dogs and are told of the imminent collapse of civilization as we know it.
3. Jesus was fairly egalitarian in his activities and to our knowledge didn't brainwash people. He didn't subject them to "card table shrines" (as xlcr would put it.)
4. Jesus was a religious leader. I recall that it was Ace who pretty much explicitly compared LaRouche to Jesus and LaRouche Youth (more or less) as akin to Jesus' disciples. I find those two things to be odd comparisons. Leaving aside false Prophets (and I'd rather LaRouche remain a fairly secular figure like he is now), LaRouche basically just claims to be an exceptionally great economist and a would-be skilled politician. I can't really recall any great economist or politician having a cult.

I think it makes more sense to call Jesus and his followers a sect rather than a cult.

It occurs to me, once again, that some of LaRouche's critics might spend too much time in ivory towers. At the risk of being too personal, I'll use some of my own anecdotes. I came from a typical blue-collar family that had to work for a living. I was the black-sheep that went to college, but I had to work too. I worked in construction as a teenager in excellent physical shape, yet my body ached every day from the demands placed on me in exchange for miniumum wage.

During college, I'd go straigt to a temp-agency during breaks. I worked in a crane yard where I smashed my shin on a crane piece. That really hurt. The scar is still visible. I worked in a recycling yard separating newspapers with a bunch of convicts nobody else would hire. I worked as a furniture-mover at a place called Starving Students. I once had to move desks that weighed well over 200 pounds up stairs and across a long balconey. I smashed my thumb severely between two desks, but I had to keep working. The pain was excruciating and the swelling was phenomenal. We had to finish, so I didn't get home until 4:00 a.m. My boss called me two hours later for another important move.

Fresh out of college, I soon discovered that my liberal eduction ill-prepared me for decent employment, so I worked as a roof-loader. Try lifting 60-100 pound bundles of roofing shingles all day. I would bleed urine from the constant repetition of having to lift each bundle with one end in my gut, so I could swing each bundle up, and onto a conveyor belt that might be over my head depending upon the angle of ascent. Finally I got a "good" job as a "group-counselor" (read jailor) at Juvenile Hall. That was easily the worst job I ever had, though I got a decent wage with full-benefits. I went through riots. I got some ribs broken from breaking up a fight. The stressed-out, back-stabbing fellow staff-members were quite possibly harder to work with than the wards, some of whom were murderers. Try doing double-shifts in that environment because someone doesn't show up like they're supposed to.

It wasn't long before I met LaRouche on campus because I still found the time to take some post-graduate courses. I never had much reason to complain about long hours of organizing when I had to make quota, and I finally got an honest education to boot. I'm proud of what I learned and accomplished, though I have to say it was a bit like being in an ivory tower. I suppose the war on this board is really just a skirmish between rival ivory-tower factions. Some of you guys need to get a real job.

Now that I'm back in the real world, I have some of the same old problems. Until recent events, my boss was easily the most enraged person I have ever known. If you work for him, you're in relatively constant physical danger. When the owner finally fired him... well let's just say he ended up in prison. The owner, who recently sold the business, was one of those kind of guys that lies a lot, even if there's no reason for it. In fact, it's real easy to tell when he's lieing. His lips are moving.

You might choose to believe I'm lieing, but I know a few things. I'd say LaRouche is an "exceptionally great economist and a would-be skilled politician." Maybe his biggest problem is that he won't lie. He calls it like it is, even if it means sacrificing popularity for the truth. That sort of behaviour apparently enrages some people with power and influence. I honestly can't help thinking that anyone who attacks LaRouche, as such, is only being a dupe for certain liars with power and influence, even if they don't know it. Either that, or thay can't tell the difference, and they don't really know what they're talking about. The only other possibility is the ivory-tower thing.

[dking]

It occurs to me, once again, that some of LaRouche's critics might spend too much time in ivory towers. At the risk of being too personal, I'll use some of my own anecdotes. I came from a typical blue-collar family that had to work for a living. I was the black-sheep that went to college, but I had to work too. I worked in construction as a teenager in excellent physical shape, yet my body ached every day from the demands placed on me in exchange for miniumum wage.

During college, I'd go straigt to a temp-agency during breaks. I worked in a crane yard where I smashed my shin on a crane piece. That really hurt. The scar is still visible. I worked in a recycling yard separating newspapers with a bunch of convicts nobody else would hire. I worked as a furniture-mover at a place called Starving Students. I once had to move desks that weighed well over 200 pounds up stairs and across a long balconey. I smashed my thumb severely between two desks, but I had to keep working. The pain was excruciating and the swelling was phenomenal. We had to finish, so I didn't get home until 4:00 a.m. My boss called me two hours later for another important move.

Fresh out of college, I soon discovered that my liberal eduction ill-prepared me for decent employment, so I worked as a roof-loader. Try lifting 60-100 pound bundles of roofing shingles all day. I would bleed urine from the constant repetition of having to lift each bundle with one end in my gut, so I could swing each bundle up, and onto a conveyor belt that might be over my head depending upon the angle of ascent. Finally I got a "good" job as a "group-counselor" (read jailor) at Juvenile Hall. That was easily the worst job I ever had, though I got a decent wage with full-benefits. I went through riots. I got some ribs broken from breaking up a fight. The stressed-out, back-stabbing fellow staff-members were quite possibly harder to work with than the wards, some of whom were murderers. Try doing double-shifts in that environment because someone doesn't show up like they're supposed to.

It wasn't long before I met LaRouche on campus because I still found the time to take some post-graduate courses. I never had much reason to complain about long hours of organizing when I had to make quota, and I finally got an honest education to boot. I'm proud of what I learned and accomplished, though I have to say it was a bit like being in an ivory tower. I suppose the war on this board is really just a skirmish between rival ivory-tower factions. Some of you guys need to get a real job.

Now that I'm back in the real world, I have some of the same old problems. Until recent events, my boss was easily the most enraged person I have ever known. If you work for him, you're in relatively constant physical danger. When the owner finally fired him... well let's just say he ended up in prison. The owner, who recently sold the business, was one of those kind of guys that lies a lot, even if there's no reason for it. In fact, it's real easy to tell when he's lieing. His lips are moving.

You might choose to believe I'm lieing, but I know a few things. I'd say LaRouche is an "exceptionally great economist and a would-be skilled politician." Maybe his biggest problem is that he won't lie. He calls it like it is, even if it means sacrificing popularity for the truth. That sort of behaviour apparently enrages some people with power and influence. I honestly can't help thinking that anyone who attacks LaRouche, as such, is only being a dupe for certain liars with power and influence, even if they don't know it. Either that, or thay can't tell the difference, and they don't really know what they're talking about. The only other possibility is the ivory-tower thing.

Xandufar, I have NO reason to think you're lying about your personal past, or that anyone else thinks you're lying either. I'm sorry you've had a tough time of it. Probably most people who've posted on this board have had tough experiences of one type or another--dysfunctional families, job problems, cancer and other medical problems, emotional problems, disabilities, addiction, the raising of special needs children.

But when you couple the stuff about your working class background with how the rest of us live in an Ivory Tower, that isn't helpful. I suspect you used this line of argument to keep people off your back when you were in the cult, and I applaud you if you did so (I saw working class and minority people in middle class leftist groups do this all the time in the Sixties, often with good reason). But you don't need to do that here.

Personally, I regard your background as probably having given you great insight about a lot of things--including how the economy works! But I fail to see its relevance to the question of whether or not the LaRouche org is a destructive cult or whether LaRouche is anti-Semitic or a crook. For determining these questions, we have tens of thousands of pages of court filings and testiimony, millions of pages of LaRouchian propaganda, the vast number of media articles from all over the world about LaRouche's antics, and the first-hand accounts (in one venue or another) of a very, very large number of former members of the LaRouche org.

Most of these people who've spoken out disagree with one another on various points, and also disagree with outside experts on many points--but almost all of them seem to agree that the LaRouche org is a destructive cult and that LaRouche is in large part a con man. I urge you to look at the portions of the evidence available at LaRouche Planet, at Chip Berlet's PRA website, at my site, in the archives of Factnet, and elsewhere on the web.

As the same time, I would not want to discourage anyone on this board from telling their personal experiences, both before, during and after their years in the LaRouche org. This would be a valuable record that we could all learn from. So I urge others to post such things, and I urge you, Xandufar, to post more about yourself, including about your Christian faith. My only objection was your pairing the narrative above with the Ivory Tower accusations in the way you did. If past interchanges between you and I somehow triggered your perception that you needed to do that, then I accept the lion's share of the blame.

[Hylozoic Hedgehog]

Just a research note. When Ace was dealt a Royal Flush, something happened in Factnet's listing of postings. For example, I first began posting on 1/24/2009. Yet when I go to look at my individual postings, the posts from January to early May 2009 have vanished. The first post that appears for me is now for 5/11/2009.

In order to find earlier postings, you can search the web. I found my first posts and the Factnet thread where they were posted on google. So they exist on the web and the sequence is intact. Factnet also says I have some 776 posts which is correct. But now I can only access the last 500. This means the first 276 posts are not listed on Factnet's search function for my HH page.

I believe the same is true with everyone else. For example, xlcr is listed at 816 posts. However if you go exlcr's personal page on FN, there are only 500 posts listed meaning that 316 posts have vanished.

Again via google you can find HH and xlcr (and for that matter Ace's) posts, but in the listing at FN, many posts have vanished. I'm guessing it may have something to do with a new thread and that when Ace got aced, it affected the other posters as well.

Again, the full record can be found via a google search.

Finally I don't pretend to understand FN technology; I'm merely recording my personal experience at finding out that my earlier posts from 1/24/2009 until 5/11/2009 have vanished in the FN search on my personal page. But anyone who is interested in how debates and such developed on Factnet from this period should be aware of this.

Maybe I am just missing some button to push. But until I got on Factnet just now to remember the date when I first began posting here, I could not help but notice the post was gone when before all my posts were simple to access on my HH page.

I have no idea as well if the thread from January 2009 in general still exists here as well as on google. I couldn't find it myself and so I had to find it on google. But, again, I don't pretend to understand FN technology or whether Ace's disappearance somehow affected the earlier thread more broadly.

[borismaglev]

Just a research note. When Ace was dealt a Royal Flush, something happened in Factnet's listing of postings. For example, I first began posting on 1/24/2009. Yet when I go to look at my individual postings, the posts from January to early May 2009 have vanished. The first post that appears for me is now for 5/11/2009.

In order to find earlier postings, you can search the web. I found my first posts and the Factnet thread where they were posted on google. So they exist on the web and the sequence is intact. Factnet also says I have some 776 posts which is correct. But now I can only access the last 500. This means the first 276 posts are not listed on Factnet's search function for my HH page.

I believe the same is true with everyone else. For example, xlcr is listed at 816 posts. However if you go exlcr's personal page on FN, there are only 500 posts listed meaning that 316 posts have vanished.

Again via google you can find HH and xlcr (and for that matter Ace's) posts, but in the listing at FN, many posts have vanished. I'm guessing it may have something to do with a new thread and that when Ace got aced, it affected the other posters as well.

Again, the full record can be found via a google search.

Finally I don't pretend to understand FN technology; I'm merely recording my personal experience at finding out that my earlier posts from 1/24/2009 until 5/11/2009 have vanished in the FN search on my personal page. But anyone who is interested in how debates and such developed on Factnet from this period should be aware of this.

Maybe I am just missing some button to push. But until I got on Factnet just now to remember the date when I first began posting here, I could not help but notice the post was gone when before all my posts were simple to access on my HH page.

I have no idea as well if the thread from January 2009 in general still exists here as well as on google. I couldn't find it myself and so I had to find it on google. But, again, I don't pretend to understand FN technology or whether Ace's disappearance somehow affected the earlier thread more broadly.

Is there a technology that could make all references to LaRouche disappear from the entire Internet? That's what LaRouche would like (and I'm not sure I wouldn't like it, too).

[Hylozoic Hedgehog]

Is there a technology that could make all references to LaRouche disappear from the entire Internet? That's what LaRouche would like (and I'm not sure I wouldn't like it, too).

No there is no technology but I can't help but suspect that there is a process that will make LaRouche disappear from the planet and which I believe is intimately related to the concept of entropy. Of course if entropy really is a British plot, I will be sadly proven wrong.

Of course if he lasts till a time when a person's consciousness can be uploaded into virtual reality programs, we will have a new working definition of hell.

[Peter_Tennenbaum]

Actually, you have company in that regard. You, me, xlcr4life, Dennis King, and of course Captain Frank, and probably more that I missed. The Wordpress blog is is not about anyone of us singly, it is about all of us collectively. Jurisdicto, as he now calls himself (themselves) has finally found a site he can flog us from, without any chance of being permanently banned. I think anyone outside the org who reads what he is posting will be left shaking their head at jurisdicto, not us.

Kheris, All,

Sorry, I was unclear--I certainly didn't mean to imply that I was being picked out. I only spent a few minutes jumping about that site; I did see that there were many pages on other FACTNET posters--and also a bizarre wall of names.

I was simply pointing out that, compared to LaR's "powerful" worldwide enemies, I don't think I warrant the 2 seconds it took to type my name, let alone any additional efforts/comments.

European:

I posted before seeing that you returned! I don't know if you were being sarcastic in thanking me for "welcoming" you back...

But, formally, welcome back! I wish you nothing but the best and was happy to hear that you are well and doing good works.

It is also nice to see that others have returned. Forgive my rants while Ace Team was around. My posting strategy was worked out with others, behind the scenes. It may have looked "psychotic", but it was halfway conscious, at minimum--if not completely conscious, although some posts were written very quickly. They were not so much intended for Ace as they were for LaR and LaRouchies.

It is nice to know that the 24/7/365/366 crisis has "receded".

Peter T. May 28, 2011

[Xandufar]

Xandufar, I have NO reason to think you're lying about your personal past, or that anyone else thinks you're lying either. I'm sorry you've had a tough time of it. Probably most people who've posted on this board have had tough experiences of one type or another--dysfunctional families, job problems, cancer and other medical problems, emotional problems, disabilities, addiction, the raising of special needs children.

But when you couple the stuff about your working class background with how the rest of us live in an Ivory Tower, that isn't helpful. I suspect you used this line of argument to keep people off your back when you were in the cult, and I applaud you if you did so (I saw working class and minority people in middle class leftist groups do this all the time in the Sixties, often with good reason). But you don't need to do that here.

Personally, I regard your background as probably having given you great insight about a lot of things--including how the economy works! But I fail to see its relevance to the question of whether or not the LaRouche org is a destructive cult or whether LaRouche is anti-Semitic or a crook. For determining these questions, we have tens of thousands of pages of court filings and testiimony, millions of pages of LaRouchian propaganda, the vast number of media articles from all over the world about LaRouche's antics, and the first-hand accounts (in one venue or another) of a very, very large number of former members of the LaRouche org.

Most of these people who've spoken out disagree with one another on various points, and also disagree with outside experts on many points--but almost all of them seem to agree that the LaRouche org is a destructive cult and that LaRouche is in large part a con man. I urge you to look at the portions of the evidence available at LaRouche Planet, at Chip Berlet's PRA website, at my site, in the archives of Factnet, and elsewhere on the web.

As the same time, I would not want to discourage anyone on this board from telling their personal experiences, both before, during and after their years in the LaRouche org. This would be a valuable record that we could all learn from. So I urge others to post such things, and I urge you, Xandufar, to post more about yourself, including about your Christian faith. My only objection was your pairing the narrative above with the Ivory Tower accusations in the way you did. If past interchanges between you and I somehow triggered your perception that you needed to do that, then I accept the lion's share of the blame.

I really think all you have is a few disgruntled ex-LaRouchies with an axe to grind because things didn't work out as they wished. Maybe they felt victimized because they couldn't handle it when they found out hard it is to create the kind of political change they probably still secretly wish they could create.

LaRouche set out to change the world dramatically, and it appears he will fail, at least while he is still alive. Maybe we can thank the Dennis King's who poisoned the wells. All the others who already gave up, still have choices. Either they can man-up and strive to make positive changes in the world, albeit on a smaller scale (I'm sure many of them have, and I applaud them for it) or they can allow their failures to fester and pollute their good sense. Some of them apparently do both with equal fervor. You have court testimony! LaRouche is anti-semitic!

LaRouche took his lumps and kept fighting. He spent time in jail, but it wasn't for alleged crimes and victimizations so often repeated by the handful of bitter xlcr's on this site. Spare me the legalese I feel might follow. I've read it all before. I'm aware that legal mistakes were made by overzealous organizers, but I know LaRouche was innocent as charged. You have court testimony!

[kheris]

This may be off-topic, but since you raise it, in order to make that possible, we need to have instant run-off voting, like some countries do. Too many people vote for what they view as "the lessor of two evils" instead of for what they believe. If we had a system where there was a run-off election between the top two vote getters in the first election, then I think 3rd parties like the Greens and the Libertarians, and even Independents would start to win elections.

If only it were that simple. Check out Theresa Amato's Grand Illusion. She was Nader's campaign manager. Also check out the Free and Equal site. Free and Equal supported a bill to end the petition process for state positions in Illinois. You show up and pay a filing fee equal to a percentage of the salary for the job (I think it was 3%). I like the idea and I think it should apply to all elected positions. Let 'em all on the ballot and let the voters sort 'em out.

[howie]

Just a research note. When Ace was dealt a Royal Flush, something happened in Factnet's listing of postings. For example, I first began posting on 1/24/2009. Yet when I go to look at my individual postings, the posts from January to early May 2009 have vanished. The first post that appears for me is now for 5/11/2009.

In order to find earlier postings, you can search the web. I found my first posts and the Factnet thread where they were posted on google. So they exist on the web and the sequence is intact. Factnet also says I have some 776 posts which is correct. But now I can only access the last 500. This means the first 276 posts are not listed on Factnet's search function for my HH page.

I believe the same is true with everyone else. For example, xlcr is listed at 816 posts. However if you go exlcr's personal page on FN, there are only 500 posts listed meaning that 316 posts have vanished.

Again via google you can find HH and xlcr (and for that matter Ace's) posts, but in the listing at FN, many posts have vanished. I'm guessing it may have something to do with a new thread and that when Ace got aced, it affected the other posters as well.

Again, the full record can be found via a google search.

Finally I don't pretend to understand FN technology; I'm merely recording my personal experience at finding out that my earlier posts from 1/24/2009 until 5/11/2009 have vanished in the FN search on my personal page. But anyone who is interested in how debates and such developed on Factnet from this period should be aware of this.

Maybe I am just missing some button to push. But until I got on Factnet just now to remember the date when I first began posting here, I could not help but notice the post was gone when before all my posts were simple to access on my HH page.

I have no idea as well if the thread from January 2009 in general still exists here as well as on google. I couldn't find it myself and so I had to find it on google. But, again, I don't pretend to understand FN technology or whether Ace's disappearance somehow affected the earlier thread more broadly.

The individual factnet search pages only go back 500. A correction when I posted this:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blo...20322662595537
Every time I posted "200", I meant "500". (I was thinking about my total post number.)