All’s Quiet on the Western Front

I had supposed a lull in the proceedings of L’Affaire Larouche, even knowing that internally somewhere in the center in Loudon and in other spots there had to be at the very least a sense of nervous jitters.  I supposed that there was nothing much that I myself, a relative naive to anything and everything, could possibly add.  The total effect comes with a somewhat generic overview item on Dennis King’s website, which has the feel to it of a place-holder in a lull between two more important items.  (Though, who am I kidding?  It’s as good an overview for a general audience not paying obnoxiously close attention as any.)

Looking it over, one week ago I came to my irreconcible conclusion, and last word, whether anybody cares or not, regarding some pesky things that bother me from a former member’s clearing the air of his involvement in the cult.  He has since added another myspace entry to tackle an assertion from a book, easily findable if you want to read it.

But, somewhere after pausing to enjoy a political commercial from 1984- that dastardly Anglo-Dutch Grain Cartel –, and then finding some  mild entertainment value to be found from some slightly off-kilter comment from “Jesus Christ” left on a blog entry here– that dastardly Anglo-Dutch Grain Cartel — I note that yesterday, the Cult Leader (the “demise” of which is coming, as Steinberg let out) sent out this note to his followers…

… To be found in the comments section (because I don’t want it to loom large on the front page of my blog, and because I can’t find frontpage to put it on a different page at this moment), his attempt at corraling the faithful from the “gossip” hounds at, I don’t know… here, there, various spots found in the sidebar over there.  Other than that, he stokes again the ego of the “Youth” against his babyt-boomers, and dredges up the apostates who have doubted him (ie: baby-boomers) over the years at various intervals, and — yep!  Another swipe at Molly Kronberg.

8 Responses to “All’s Quiet on the Western Front”

  1. Justin Says:

    “Gideon’s Army”
    “(“we” as I typify “we”) ”


    | MONDAY, SEPT 10, 2007 |

    FROM:LAR ” Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. ”



    September 9, 2007 (2:10pm) ECT

    For the Record:

    Recently, an associate has raised, repeatedly, the assertion
    that my current policies on the subjects of Marxian
    economy and Roosevelt have changed, that almost
    axiomatically, over the course of the recent three-and-a-
    half-decades. I have replied, each time, by pointing to
    evidence that that is not true. In fact, the truth is that the
    values of some among our associates have changed as the
    years have gone by; a shift from onward-looking combat
    for a cause, to a contemplative outlook, from us in combat
    for mankind, to adjusting to views which might be more
    acceptable to those who never made our commitment to
    humanity, those among extended family and kindred sorts
    of social connections. The principle expressed is that, brave
    soldiers are most likely to be found among younger adults
    under approximately thirty-five years of age.

    To provide the message needed to quell the idle speculation
    about my supposed change of views on these matters, the
    following small piece is placed on our record.

    My outlook has not changed in any essentials, on either
    Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or principles of economy, since the
    developments of the 1946-1953 interval. This point is shown most
    immediately, and clearly, by my adoption of the work of Bernard
    Riemann, in 1953, as an outgrowth of my Spring 1948 reflections
    on my January 1948 reading of Professor Norbert Weiner’s
    Cybernetics. That view on the science of economy was consolidated
    by my successful long-range economic forecasting during the
    interval 1956-1960, a method rooted in the anti-Euclidean outlook
    on the method for physical science which I adopted early during
    my adolescence.

    It is very much to the point, that I have never shared the
    empiricist’s or so-called Anglo-Dutch Liberal’s view, that
    “opinions about this or that” are matters to be treated as
    substitutes for principles. For me, as for all competent
    science, principles are either universal, or they are not
    principles, although knowledge of them is acquired through an
    historical process.

    Take the case of Molly Kronberg. Some people were shocked
    by the evidence, from the public record, that she had gone over
    to the political enemy. Why? I was already aware of this by
    about 1990. If the evidence were overlooked, her perfervid
    devotion to ways and things Brutish marked her as the wife of a
    loyal member who had gone over to intellectual affiliation with
    the enemy cause. Every time I spoke unfavorably of our
    republic’s principal long- term foe, the “Brutish Empire,” Molly
    would slam her books on the floor and storm out; she had already
    gone over to the other side, and sooner or later she would choose
    a new destiny, as Linda de Hoyos, and Uwe Friesecke had done with
    the scheme he unleashed on the instant he knew I was being
    shipped to a prison from which he was confident I would not
    return alive.

    Or take the case of those departed souls, such as the bunch
    who were not only taken in by the Winstar scam, an outright scam,
    in even its bare conception, from the outset, but adopted change
    in moral and practical expressions of a philosophical
    world-outlook contrary to the standpoint of my life’s work in our
    association. They were typical of those who, out of cowardice,
    reacted to the developments of 1984-1989, by surrendering,
    emotionally and intellectually to the enemy, waving the “white
    flag of surrender” while shouting to the smiling adversary,
    “Please, don’t shoot us; we and our families need that money!”

    “Lyn is wrong about the economy,” was the common expression
    of this fear-driven apostasy, The ranks of the “Gideon’s Army”
    grew smaller in this way.

    This problem, as a flight from sane economic outlook into
    middle-class Baby-Boomer-style fantasy-life, became clear to me
    in January 1996, at the first general meeting on behalf of my
    Presidential election. This sickened state of mind ran rampant
    through our association through the 2000 collapse of the Y2K

    It was that state of mind among a significant number of
    those among and around us, which not only bankrupted PMR
    virtually by 2000, but had virtually bankrupted our association
    as a by-product of the loss of the subscription fulfilment (for
    New Federalist, EIR, and others) which had been our association’s
    chief economic base of continued operations, and “fourth circle”
    base of organized political and related support.

    Today, we are faced with the situation among us, that belief
    in Winstar, in the fantasies of PMR’s management, and so on, are
    already gone or waning among those of us with even the shards of
    sanity, but the scars on the mind which formerly habituated
    illusions have produced, persist. During that period, when those
    and kindred, misleading fantasies were treated as “inside
    knowledge” of the gossip circuits, the outlooks of those
    victimized by these errant fads were habituated among some as
    “our traditions,” even when those policies themselves were dead.

    As relevant publications and policies of outreach, from the
    1970s on attest, we were always premised on what came to be hated
    among what are now our former associates in the U.S.A. and
    Europe, whether the anglophile whores of “Uriah Heep” Friesecke’s
    gang of habituated liars, the “right wingers” from the downward
    flow of the left bank of the Rhine, or Fearful Fernando’s Fascist
    Fakers in the U.S.A.

    All that is historical and otherwise fact, but the more
    interesting aspect of the matter is that which touches, here and
    there, on matters which have actual bearing, not on mere liberal
    doses of “our traditional” gossip, but matters bearing on points
    of actual pinciple.

    Karl Marx’s Economics

    Karl Marx had no serious presence in economics until
    he had arrived, as already a member of Lord Palmerston’s
    Young Europe association, under the immediate supervision
    of that veteran British foreign-office agent Urquhart who was
    then serving, in his post at the British Library, as the general
    secretary for correspondence with branches of the
    International Young Europe association. Under Urquhart’s
    eagle eye, Marx was steered through the standard hagiolatry
    of the former Foreign Office Secret Committee secretary
    Jeremy Bentham’s Haileybury School. All during the time
    Marx was actually controlled by Bentham’s trainee and
    successor, the Lord Palmerston whom Russia-hating Karl
    Marx denounced in an entire book which purported to expose
    Palmerston as a Russian spy.

    It attests to British methods, still today, that Karl Marx’s
    appointment to his position as Secretary of the “First
    International” was announced, at a London public meeting, by
    Palmerston’s official head of the Young Europe association.
    The point respecting Marxian economics which is of maximum
    relevance for us in this review, is that Marxian economics is a
    branch of British imperial economic dogma, and is premised
    entirely on the axiomatic assumptions of the Physiocrats,
    Mandeville, Adam Smith, Gianmaria Ortes, et al. The historical
    and otherwise practical significance of this fact for us today,
    is that with the exception of the interval 1933-1964, as extended
    to the onset of the Nixon Presidency, the international
    monetary-financial system as a whole, was an extension of the
    British empire-in-fact established with the February 1763 Peace
    of Paris, the founding of the empire, then under the East India
    Company, which conclusively superseded the Peace of Westphalia.
    That system, as it was crafted under Haileybury’s influence, is
    the system which, with that noted exception has ruled and ruined
    the world at large over the entire span of that time, as
    expressed in the present plunge toward the establishment of a
    global new dark age, today.

    We have (“we” as I typify “we”) the best insight into this
    system of any known person, or persons living today. We also
    have a method of forecasting, developed uniquely by me, which is
    systemically rooted in the method which Bernard Riemann crafted
    on his principal predecessors, from Cusa and Kepler, through
    Liebniz, and Riemann. My method of forecasting is systemically
    dynamic, whereas all putative rivals, including my foolishly
    forecasting friends in Leesburg and elsewhere, rely upon
    statistical-forecasting methods derived from Descartes. Marx was
    a neo-Cartesian on this account.

    Similarly, all of my views on human nature and society,
    including those akin to Vernadsky’s, are premised on the
    Riemannian method which I adopted in 1953, as the appropriate
    point of reference for overturning the swinishness of Norbert
    Weiner and John v. Neumann.

    Stay with principles, rather than gossip or “positions.”

    The mental map of the universe in which I live, once built,
    never changes in any essential feature of practice, until the
    person holding such a map is dead, in one sense or another. Most
    people in my time have not shown convincing evidence that they
    have such a coherent map, although they will, nonetheless,
    unwittingly, be possessed by one.

  2. rachel holmes Says:

    I think it’s fair to say that LaRouche is not a well man.

    Eaglebeak over at FactNet has some interesting background on some of LaRouche’s references. Some of the references, of course, must remain forever mysterious, “locked in the impenetrable bosom” of LaRouche, to coin a phrase.

  3. Rachel Holmes Says:

    Me again–it’s worth your readers knowing that for the second time this week, people who want to post on FactNet cannot. It can be read, but not posted to–I have heard several complaints on this.

    It’s my belief that the LaRouchies are hacking FactNet. Just a word to the wise: Children, hacking is illegal, and you can go to the Big House for it. Just like Papa LaRouche.

  4. Justin Says:

    Interesting. I note that I have not been able to log into Dennis King’s website for this last week. A downtime that has happened before (though I wasn’t entirely sure if it wasn’t exceeded bandwidth in placing his book online or something). I pass that on for whatever you may want to do with it.

  5. rachel holmes Says:

    Someone just sent me the new name of Dennis King’s website–long story, but the new name of the site is

    After that, all the pathways are the same–if you’re searching for duggan, or kronberg, or whatever, you can just add the rest of the pathway after org, and all should work the same.


  6. Justin Says:

    Hm. Looking at the entire Factnet board
    I see that the last update anywhere is on the 12th. As with the Larouche. I suppose I, or anyone else, could post a “test” to make sure. The board, for whatever reason, plot or not, is down.

    Wasn’t set up with the impending demise of Factnet in mind? (Now the home of the Random Internal Memo Generator)?

    With that function not up there, well… there’s this blog and there’s … A bit too decentralized, I suppose, and I hope Factnet gets up again swiftly, but in the meantime, I guess park flashes of note there or here.

  7. Justin Says:

    One more thing: Washington Monthly’s website has just added a couple of items from the next issue, October. Thinking about space, I wonder if that means the Larouche article is in… the November issue. Who knows?

  8. Rachel Holmes Says:

    For Dennis King’s website, the following both seem to work:


    A new contribution there:

Leave a Reply