Steve comments

Um.
Y’know.

Oh, let’s just run with this.

As to Factnet I really don’t care how many people are there whining that Lyn did them wrong. And I only care marginally whether or not he may have actually done them wrong. We are imperfect beings – even Lyn, though I know there are members who would disagree on that point. We all do and have done and will do bad things. So he may have done some wrong to some people. That does not make him an evil hearted individual. Surely what mistakes he may have made in his behavior toward some of his associates, if in fact such claims are even legit, are outweighed by the great good he is struggling to acheive for all humanity.

And the beat goes on.

9 Responses to “Steve comments”

  1. tuer07 Says:

    What good, Steve?

  2. Rachel Holmes Says:

    Let’s try this on for size. He’s done evil to a lot of people, he treats almost everyone with a contempt that sorts very ill with his actual accomplishments, and the people he doesn’t grind into the dust he grovels before.

    LaRouche is the ultimate kiss-up, kick-down. If he thinks someone is a Personage, he’s a lickspittle. If you’re not a Personage, drop dead.

    Winston Churchill once said (speaking of the Germans during WWII, so forgive his ethnic bias) “Either at your throat or at your feet.” Well, that’s Lyn.

    Frankly Steve, I don’t care that you don’t care what Lyn has done. I mean, let’s be blunt–who are you? Not even with the cachet of a member or former member. You don’t even know the guy. (Supposedly.)

    If you are who you say you are–the lone admirer from afar–you’re so out of the loop as to make your views entirely beside the point. If you are who you may well be–a gung-ho Leesburg LaRouchie with a lot of time to post stuff–your views are (as Lyn might say) of clinical interest only.

    So now that you’ve told us that you don’t care how Lyn treats people, let me say that I already knew that. It’s obvious. If you did care, you wouldn’t say such foolish, childish, amoral things.

  3. Rachel Holmes Says:

    Hi, Steve–

    Me again. You might take a look at FactNet–very interesting discussion of LaRouche’s beyond peculiar ideas about Hitler and his origins.

    Perhaps you will want to rethink that business about working for the greater good.

  4. Justin Says:

    OR, cut and pasted here:

    sancho:
    The upshot of the LaRouche Hitlerproblem is that the Anglo-Americans and Jews foisted Hitler upon an innocent German Volk and that, consequently, it was they – not the Germans – who were responsible for herding undesirables into railway cars and working and gassing them to death, when they weren’t shot outright and buried in anonymous mass graves.

    Stated baldly like that, LaRouche’s monstrous evil stands out clearly for all members and ex-members to see. When you compound this with all the rightists and worse that Der Helga and Der Alte consorted with over the years as documented on Dennis King’s website, it makes me nauseous to think that I ever had anything to do with this gang. What happens when one is in the cult is that one sees what one wants to see. Any current member – particularly a Jewish member – who faces what he or she has helped to support over the years, namely these little get-togethers for the nattering LaRouches with fascist, murderous filth, and remains a member really has lost his/her soul.

    But then LaRouche is a proven murderer: (1) the countless abortions, (2) Michael Gelber, (3) Jeremiah Duggan, and (4) Kenneth Kronberg.

    larouchetruth:

    Possibly the most hideous (and that’s saying a lot) monstrosity of an historical claim in this connection is the claim that Churchill was pro-Hitler. Of all the people to make that claim about, given his incontrovertible record as the (temporarily, as it turned out, thank God) Cassandra of British politics, warning of the danger of Hitler since 1932, and suffering ostracism from the political realm for years because of his stance, never wavered from. Not to mention what he did from the moment he reentered the cabinet, including being THE go-between between Roosevelt and the Chamberlain government during Britain’s darkest days when covert help from Roosevelt helped Britain hold on until the U.S. could formally enter the war.

    I once finally discovered the quixotic “evidence” on which this charge is entirely based, some quote from Churchill from the mid-1930s dug up by Lonnie Wolfe, where Churchill commented in some context on how he admired Hitler’s ability to wield power the way he did, or something to that effect. It was a commentary on how amazing it was that Hitler had acquired the immense power that he had, in no way, shape or form an endorsement of any kind of anything Hitler stood for or was doing with that power. Taken totally out of context.

    But for LaRouche, since his predilection was to support his “the Brits created, installed and controlled Hitler (until he escaped that control and went wild)” construction, he needed to include Churchill in the cast of villains, so this is the truly unbelievable way he did so. And members swallow this swill, as far as I know, which is even more amazing. Which reminds me, Roosevelt at one point after becoming president admired Mussolini, including for some of his economic policies–something the early LC pointed out and held against him, decades before they fell in love with him. Roosevelt was manifestly and publicly infinitely more “pro-fascist” than Churchill was ever “pro-Hitler.” But, for LaRouche, it’s whatever factoid works to make, or appear to make, the point that he has predetermined to maintain. Truly amazing. And he calls himself the greatest intellect in several centuries, if not millenia! Ponder that, LYM members and dead-enders.

    shadok:
    larouche & hitler

    to deal with lyn’s sick mind I realized you have to be ready to think the unthinkable.

    I always wondered why he s against Hitler (i mean since i left the org).
    After all Hitler was pro-German, he was a dictator (lyn hates democracy as we all know), he loved war (as lyn does) and did it against lyn’s “enemies”: the Brits, the Jews, the international Finance, Freemasons, Jesuits, homosexuals, communists, the Russians… which happen to be the same as Hitler’s enemies. Culturally speaking it might not be ideal but, contrary to what the org says, the Nazis celebrated Beethoven and Schiller quite officially (these are facts). And, last but not least, Hitler “made History”, in the same romantic sense as Hegel’s “Philosophy of History” (fascination with Napoleon/ZeitGeist)…

    The only logical explanation left to solve this puzzle is that… larouche is against Hitler BECAUSE HITLER LOST THE WAR!
    Why did he lose the war?… well because he was a “British agent”, says larouche!!! (he also blamed Hitler for his fatal strategic error: the East-Front.)
    Consequently we have to conclude that if he wasn’t a British agent and didn’t move to the East, he would have won the war (and lyn would have been pro-Hitler)!
    Lyn is against these (British) Nazis but is openly pro-(German)Wehrmacht (aka what he calls the “good nationalists”). This explains why all these “wehrmacht scientists” were associated, or even defended (against OSI) by the org. It explains why the “Patriots for Germany” we created was full of exmembers of the Wehrmacht… Another example: Peenemunde was good as long it was run by the “good scientists/Wehrmacht”… but then the “bad” (aka British, malthusian) Nazis spoiled it all with Dora slave-labor camp etc… That’s the org.’s analysis on Peenemunde.
    In fact larouche believes Germany SHOULD have won the war, because German “culture” is so much superior than any other nations’, there was no other explanation in his sick mind that Germany should have won the war unless… Hitler’s Nazis were a nasty (non-German) British/Jewish operation, they were “traitors” created to destroy this great “German Culture”. (btw, in the same vein – the Nazis used to blame the Jews and Brits for their defeat in WW1)

    However unthinkable it is, this all makes sense to me now.

  5. Justin Says:

    I think my next Larouche-related post concerns something with the Nazis, though I’m not entirely sure — don’t wait up for it, it’s just goofy stuff I read in some old literature of the cult’s. But In the meantime, the eight FACTNet posts that start with this one are — well, Dennis King should be posting it anytime now: http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/4/40884.html?1200518490#POST476126

  6. Rachel Holmes Says:

    Please note that something strange is going on with FactNet–all posts after Jan. 11 or so are now missing (deleted? hacked?), including the lengthy post by eaglebeak that involves LaRouche’s astonishing Dec. 18 briefing lead in which he blames Molly Kronberg for his Federal trial and conviction and imprisonment of 1988 forward.

    If you’re interested in posting that on this site, even though it is lengthy, I copied it off FactNet before it got zapped there.

  7. Justin Says:

    The link I provided takes one right there. Maybe it was a temporary glitch, but as of this moment, the posts are there.

  8. Justin Says:

    http://www.struat.com/justin/cultleaderblamesmollykronbergforimprisonment.htm

    Which belongs in the same category as:

    http://www.struat.com/justin/whathappenedwithpmr.htm

    I’m not sure what else I should file away into that page. Perhaps I should take the time and effort to assemble the internal memos into one spot. I don’t know.

  9. revenire Says:

    LaRouche isn’t a proven murderer. Name the court that did that.

    It’s just more bitter nonsense from Rachel.

    Who cares about Duggan, Kronberg, etc.? They are dead. Okay? Get over it.

    You keep talking and talking like the clouds will open when the fact of the matter is no one cares.

    No one.

Leave a Reply