http://lyndonlarouche.org/

and

http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/

A new contribution there:

http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/suicide2.htm

Wasn’t laroucheplanet.info 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 larouchewatch.blogspot.com … 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.

http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org

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.

Thanks.

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.

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.

http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/4/33628.html?1188615517

| NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS BULLETIN |

| MONDAY, SEPT 10, 2007 |
TO:@DIS:NEC,WIE,HSE

FROM:LAR ” Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. ”

CC:HZL

SUBJ: FOR OUR CONSUMPTION

September 9, 2007 (2:10pm) ECT

For the Record:
DO YOU REMEMBER RIEMANN?

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
bubble.

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.