“Financial Crises Grow Exponentially”

However, a new article from the LaRouche Youth explains the real menace facing American life today: Dick Cheney’s plot to have us play computer games.

There is some method to this madness, and it probably does have some recruiting ability on a college campus.  A handful is all that is needed, and all that is desirable for this shammy whammy.  But, going to the item of interest from the “Larouche Youth Intelligence”, um…

For all those individuals salivating about the new Halo 3 video game, ask yourself the question: what is the difference between man and beast?

NOOOOOO!!!   Kill me.

II.  It appears that “someone” has edited history and deleted the raving remarks that I noted above.The Schiller Institute (sic) site now provides a transcript:
but it OMITS LAR’s final remarks, including his World-Delusional Ejack-adulation:

“Q: You were just talking about, it’s so important to get Cheney out of office: And who can get Cheney out of office?
LAROUCHE: Me! Or, nobody can. Either one.”

But the above still appears at the original location:

Still, EITHER ONE “is” madness.

III. Because the world is demanding to read the cult’s internal daily briefings:

Tuesday, September 25, 2007|
LaRouche Says a Kick in the Testicles Is Needed
b~~~~Commenting on the Herbert Hoover-like delusion expressed by some Democrats and others that the present financial crisis is not a breakdown crisis, Lyndon LaRouche said today that we have to be tough. If people in the Democratic Party continue to hold onto this incompetent opinion, we may find ourselves losing the nation and civilization. This is a breakdown crisis. It was forecast by Lyndon LaRouche and that forecast is proven to be correct beyond any doubt. Unfortunately some Congressmen have been sucked into the view that the current crisis is not a breakdown crisis, under pressure from hedge funds, among others. To the extent that they continue to hold that incompetent view, the solutions which they offer are also incompetent. Moreover, they are delaying on erecting the necessary firewall as proposed by LaRouche to protect homeowners and state and federally chartered banks.
b~~~~LaRouche emphasized that there is no room for compromise. Anyone who says this is not a breakdown crisis should be told the he or she is incompetent, and that the price for that incompetence is beyond anything they’re willing to pay. Because of such incompetence we may lose the nation. Therefore any opinion that this is not a systemic breakdown crisis is not only incompetent, but a threat to the welfare of the nation.
b~~~~This is our line, period! A kick in the testicles is needed. 

Which leads us directly to this challenge of note:

I was unaware of this latest “forecast” when, a week ago, my friendly Leesberg contact – a well-known Boomer from the old FEF, called to tell me that by October 15th, the dollar would be worth ZERO.“Zero” ($0.0) I asked. “Surely you must be joking! Why do you keep telling me these things? You/LAR are always wrong. Yet, with each new crisis, you have the same high confidence. WTF are you trying to pull off? I’ve been hearing this nonsense for 30-40 years.”

The boomer tells me that “THIS time, it is all coming down. The CRASH is coming.”

I reply: “Surely you must have an out of some kind? Is it October 15th by 11:59PM, is that when it will end? Or will you fudge the date?”

“Yes, Oct. 15. The system is finished. Everything will vanish.”

“But perhaps YOU/LAR will intervene to save us – is that the excuse you will use when the crash does not materialize by 11:59PM on October 15th?”

So, of course, the boomer tells me about some proposal they are trying to get congress to pass (I knew nothing about it.).

I then ask, “Well, what is the cut-off date, after which the forecast will be written in stone?”

Boomer replies, “The end of September – if the bill is not enacted, the crash will come by the 15th.”

I ask, “What will the crash look like? Are you going to weasel out of that too, like you have all the other times? How can we MEASURE this crash.”

Boomer: “Money will be worthless – you will not be able to buy a loaf of bread for $100,000. The dollar will go to zero.”

I reply: “I am writing this down – I will hold you to this. So you say that $10 will not buy a loaf of bread, nor $100, nor $1,000, nor $10,000, not even $100,000.

Boomer: “Yes, exactly.”
On October 16th, I want to send my guy a loaf of bread, probably via UPS. Any advice on what type I should send?

So we have two things that are dominating the “political work” of the Larouche organization at this moment.  The BAE Scandal and Halo 3.  No.  Not the BAE Scandal.  Um.  A bill that is oh-so-being prodded into various state legislators that will solve the morgage crisis, and stave off the upcoming Dark Ages brought with the destruction of the economy…

… not to be confused with the Dark Ages that are being unleashed by Halo 3.

IV.  Now available online:  http://www.archive.org/details/SexualImpotenceOf


Take note of the provocative question “What is Male Impotence?”

This one requires you put your computer screen on your side.  Or something. http://www.archive.org/details/WhatEveryConservativeShould


… Because, you know, the world is demanding to see 30 and 40 year old Larouche propaganda.

V.  One interesting thought on why Larouche insists on referencing Jeremiah Duggan as “Jeremy”, and I either posited it or nearly did so on this blog already, but was mentioned again at FACTNet.   It may be a deliberate psychopathic slap at Mrs. Duggan, who looked Larouche up on the Internet before her son went to the “Schiller Institute” meeting, but she misspelled his name.  Or… it may be a refusal of Larouche to use the name “Jeremiah”, for one of “those reasons”…

55 Responses to ““Financial Crises Grow Exponentially””

  1. Rachel Holmes Says:

    Yes, you also no doubt remember Lyn’s endless tiresome jokes about taking a leak, every time he had to leave a meeting to go to the bathroom.

    I know about Revenire–but do you know about Revenant? That’s what you don’t want to become….

    And lastly–you have told us a few times how nice you are–or, to be accurate, that you are nice or can be nice. So what I can’t figure out is, if you’re so nice, why the harping on Nick Benton’s reasons for leaving?

  2. revenire Says:

    I am not harping on it Rachel but let’s be honest here and you know as well as I do Nick didn’t leave because he was sick of Lyndon’s stale jokes or became disenchanted with the LC.

    I am not a corpse that has returned from the grave — the Revenant reference. LOL, I wish I could return from the grave but that might be something a Scientologist could tell me I can do or a member of Benny Hinn’s cult but so far LaRouche has not added that sort of “immortality” — off a zuvembie — to his list. Life’s too short, either way, but coming back as the living dead is not something I’d like — you’re right. Good reference.

    In an odd way Rachel, I like you. I know you can’t stand LaRouche and have your reasons but you have a good sense of humor. We don’t agree on some things but probably agree on others.

    You know people leave for different reasons and it isn’t always Big Bad LaRouche drove them out because they were Boomers. It isn’t an easy life: being a full time LC member and you know that. I give the ones who have hung on a lot of credit.

    Just the thought of prison would have been enough to shatter a lot of organizations but it didn’t shatter the LC. It did cause things to happen and people to leave though.

    Take care.

  3. Rachel Holmes Says:

    The thought of prison wasn’t what did me in as a LaRouchie, though believe me, most of us weren’t thrilled (a few were, but that’s a different study in pathology). It was the Thought of LaRouche, in all senses in which that genitive construction can be construed.

    More recently, long after my initial epiphanies, if you will, a friend of mine jumped off an overpass in Sterling, Va. Now this was someone I knew well….

    So that wasn’t great either. And I do lay blame on the old stone doorstep at Windy Hill for that one.

    Anyhow, on your other comment: Not only would we like each other, we probably did like each other, when we were both in the org (because I am assuming that you were and are)….

  4. revenire Says:

    Yeah, I had a friend — not associated with the LC at all — and he blew his brains out. He was bi-polar and given the state of our health ‘safety net’ wasn’t getting his meds etc. He was at the end of his rope and took his life. I blame the ‘system’ for his death and, like it or not, LaRouche’s proposals for the economy could have turned things around for a hell of a lot of people. You see it otherwise I know and I know losing a friend, or a relative, or any death hits home. I can sympathize with you on that.

    I am not not in the “org” Rachel. I would just come out and say so if I was. I don’t care about that. I am proud to be associated with LaRouche. I am close to the LC and have many friends: some are out and some are in. Thirty years is a long time and you make friends with folks.

    I know you blame Lyn for Ken’s death. That is loud and clear. We can agree to disagree no? I know you like me now or you’d tell me to take a flying leap (not a joke about Ken).

    This whole blog likes me and get a lot of mileage out of having someone who support LaRouche here. You guys get to kick me. 😉

  5. Rachel Holmes Says:

    True enough–every comic likes a straight man, every polemicist likes a foil.

    On Kronberg’s death, good heavens, what basis do you have for disagreeing that LaRouche was to blame? “Gossip” and rumors from within the org?

    Now interestingly, BBoyd got all het up once a few months ago at Molly Kronberg (this would be when they were still speaking at all), and yelled at her that she was running around saying that LaRouche deliberately killed Ken.

    Molly said, No, I never said deliberately. I just said he killed him.

    This is of a piece with Odd One’s thing on FactNet about the murder of Ken Kronberg (who said murder?) and the fracas here between you and Earnest One over stabbing vs. stuck it to.

    There are a lot of mighty touchy people in the LaRouche org, superdefensive about Kronberg and Duggan, but at the same time insisting there’s no connection between LHL and the org and those deaths.

    (Sort of like Bruce Director’s boomerang letter to British MPs saying we had nothing to do with Jeremiah’s death, and by the way, don’t you dare try to reopen the investigation.)

    Anyhow, what basis do you have for disagreeing about the connection between LaRouche’s behavior and Kronberg’s death? Do you have the secret memo where LaRouche tells Kronberg what a great guy Kronberg is?

    Because the rest of us have read the memos where LaRouche lacerates Kronberg, over a period of a couple of years–which might have been tolerable if these bozos had at least paid their bills to PMR, rather than driving it into the ground.

    (See FactNet recent discussions.)

    I am thinking of reposting all the relevant memos on FactNet, since I think there are a lot of LaRouche folk wandering around who haven’t digested it all yet.

Leave a Reply