    
eaglebeak
Member
Username:
eaglebeak
Post Number:
81
Registered:
4-2007
Posted From:
69.255.36.41
|
| Posted
on Monday, August 06, 2007 - 10:57 pm: |
 |
Some Comments on LaRouche
"Internal Memo"/Part I
First Comment: This memo was not written by LaRouche (not his style, for
sure--and if LaRouche had written it, he wouldn't have listed Linda de
Hoyos before Uwe Friesecke), but it was certainly ordered and shaped and
guided by him. Who knows who the poor flunky was who actually got to write
it? I have some ideas, but since they're only speculative, will not air
them--at least, not now.
Second Comment: The target audience for this memo is the "yutes"--the
LYM. Not the Baby Boomer members.
Evidence:
1. It was buried in the Operations Bulletin section of the Morning
Briefing--Boomer members don't read this religiously, but LYMers do.
I'll wager any number of Boomer members missed the "Memo"
completely.
2. It targets FactNet--which is also read by (and sometimes posted on by)
LYMers. I doubt that any Boomer members post on FactNet, but more of them
are reading it these days, as it gets more exciting. Still, FactNet is
definitely a yute magnet. (It's not American Family Foundation, by the
way.)
3. It carries on about someone stalking Robert Beltran--not a fact that
would interest Boomer members, who don't give much of a hoot about
Beltran. He is strictly a yute-related personage, elevated by LaRouche.
4. The reference to gossip circles who need to be quelled is
instructive--because this is after all an internal memo. So we conclude
that the gossiping going on is internal, and that some of the leadership
is concerned.
Third Comment: The rather frenzied preamble is characteristic of LaRouche
responses--totally over the top.
Where's the evidence that Dennis King is paid--let alone
"overpaid"--by John Train?
Where's the evidence that Dennis King is a plagiarist? What on earth is he
supposed to be plagiarizing? All these attacks mean is that he really
stung somone with his :"Lyndon LaRouche and the Art of Induced
Suicide"?
I won't even deal with the lunatic characterization of Paul Kazprszack
(sp?) as "pathetically sexually obsessed"--anyone who's been
following FactNet knows that the "pathetically sexually
obsessed" individual is Lyndon LaRouche. If what's been posted on
FactNet isn't enough, go read Christine Berle's resignation letter for
more proof to that effect.
|
eaglebeak
Member
Username:
eaglebeak
Post Number:
82
Registered:
4-2007
Posted From:
69.255.36.41
|
| Posted
on Monday, August 06, 2007 - 11:06 pm: |
|
Some Comments on LaRouche
"Internal Memo"/Part II
Okay, let's go to the "Simple Facts."
b~~~~Simple Fact: PMR was founded to print the publications of
the LaRouche political movement and it was always dependent,
despite the wild-eyed contrary theories of such "business
geniuses" as Linda De Hoyos or Uwe Friesecke, upon the success of
the political movement for its own success.
Comment: What is this about? Ken Kronberg certainly believed deeply that
PMR was founded to print the publications of Lyndon LaRouche, and he
believed deeply that it depended on the success of the political movement
for its own success.
The collapse of a looted PMR and the suicide of Ken Kronberg are the
starkest possible object lesson of what happens when you depend on the
LaRouche movement for anything--success, impact, or even your mere
existence.
b~~~~Simple Fact: In 2000 and 2001, PMR made a disastrous
business decision by continuing to move forward with an expensive
and expansive move to new quarters when the commercial account
upon which the move was premised had already been lost, and
depression had already hit the graphics arts and mailing
industries generally. One effect of the move was to dramatically
increase PMR's cost of production while diverting capital into
debt service which otherwise could have been invested in more
efficient technologies. In the course of the move and other
events, supporters of the LaRouche movement stepped forward to
invest over $2 million dollars in the company in order to salvage
it.
Comment: This has LaRouche's pawprints all over it, and his lies. The
spring 2001 move of PMR and WorldComp into a new office had been discussed
in advance with LaRouche--Ken Kronberg met with LaRouche, as a matter of
fact--and Lyndon LaRouche Himself had signed off on it.
The account referred to, which I am not naming now, but all the details
are known and available, was not lost before the move. That's simply a
lie, but it is known to be one of LaRouche's obsessions, so we know where
that lie comes from.
|
eaglebeak
Member
Username:
eaglebeak
Post Number:
83
Registered:
4-2007
Posted From:
69.255.36.41
|
| Posted
on Monday, August 06, 2007 - 11:09 pm: |
|
Some Comments on LaRouche
"Internal Memo"/Part III
The increase in cost of production? What did LaRouche ever care? EIR, 21st
Century Science and Technology, and New Federalist newspaper were all
billed below cost, and never paid for anyhow. (Two of three no longer
exist as print entities, and it isn't because they paid too much--it's
that they couldn't pay anything at all.)
What would LaRouche say if the books and records of PMR and WorldComp
became public, do you suppose? Hmmm.
The cynical LaRouche touch about diverting money otherwise usable for new
technologies is a joke from the World's Greatest Business Consultant.
Money diverted to debt service--how much? to whom? What debt service? What
capital? Where did PMR get "capital"?
Now--as to the "other events"--that would be a reference to the
sale in the early 1990s of LaRouche's estate Ibykus to pay PMR withholding
taxes (they couldn't pay them then, either, because LaRouche entities
didn't pay their publishing debts).
$900,000 or so was realized to pay PMR's withholding taxes in the early
1990s--which was significantly less than was owed to PMR, by the way. And
that's why LaRouche hates Ken Kronberg, Linda De Hoyos, Uwe Friesecke, and
one other person still a member. They sold "his" house to save
the printing company from his entities' refusal to pay it.
Of course, LaRouche had run around the country during the trials saying he
had no house, was the "old grandfather in the attic," put up at
the sufferance of friends--but don't you believe it. He considered it his
house, with its swimming pool and horse riding ring and all the rest--and
the whole organization could've gone up in flames before he would have
permitted selling it--only he didn't own it.
After all, he intentionally had no visible means of support, even though
he had very visible support--lived very nicely, thank you, on no income.
That was one of the issues in the Alexandria Federal Trial, kiddies--as
one of the paralegals said, there's nothing a jury hates worse than a guy
who doesn't pay taxes.
Anyhow, that's the "other" events.
MORE TO COME
|
tuer07
New member
Username:
tuer07
Post Number:
16
Registered:
7-2007
Posted From:
70.169.167.73
|
| Posted
on Tuesday, August 07, 2007 - 1:54 am: |
|
The thing that is most
disturbing about the internal memo is its rage against Ken Kronberg, and
anyone who dares to mourn him. The tone and language of this memo
represents precisely the kind of abusive, bullying invective that has been
used by LaRouche against every dissenting member for the past 37 years.
Ironically, while LaRouche claims that others are exploiting "the
tragic death of Ken Kronberg" the ENTIRE purpose of this memo is rip
apart Kronberg and threaten those people who are grieving over his
death--the same people in the organization who are in turmoil over Ken's
death. Rather than memorialize Ken in a loving way, and respond to the
turmoil and grief in a way that a loving person would, with compassion,
LaRouche rampages against Ken, essentially saying, "you are idiots if
you mourn him, those people writing about him on Factnet and elsewhere,
don't know him, here is the truth, we will prove to you that you and he
are losers." According to LaRouche's memo, Ken should have fallen on
his sword years ago, but instead, according to the memo, Ken looted
LaRouche by making the LaRouche PACS pay their bills for printing.
Whose demise is LaRouche really talking about when he says "It is now
clear, in the wake of PMR's demise, that both political committees could
have printed their campaign materials for substantially less cost had they
not utilized PMR
as their exclusive printer." What a horrible statement--he clearly is
talking about Ken's death.
Further, this statement begs the question: If PMR was so dependent on
LaRouche, why didn't he make PMR lower its costs? Obviously, that wasn't
the issue. PMR demanded LaRouche pay his bills, and to LaRouche that was
betrayal of the worst sort.
This memo is so nasty and cold it could only have been put forward by a
sociopath -someone who sees his victim as merely an instrument to be used,
and dominated and humiliated.
I agree with the memo's conclusion that "those wishing to honor Ken's
memory should stick to the truth" - those individuals still in the
organization that are questioning LaRouche and his immoral, insane
response to Ken's death, are the sane and moral human beings, and they
deserve so much more than what they are getting. |
larouchetruth
New member
Username:
larouchetruth
Post Number:
8
Registered:
8-2007
Posted From:
71.171.94.115
|
| Posted
on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 12:39 pm: |
|
CALLING ALL LC/LYM
MEMBERS TO THE FIGHT OF THE CENTURY: LAROUCHE V. LAROUCHE (or is it
LaRouche v. LaRouche v. LaRouche v. LaRouche?) I invite you, and
everyone else, to ringside seats as LaRouche refutes himself,
changes his line, and contradicts himself, all in the space of
weeks, starting the day of poor Ken Kronberg’s tragedy. But first
a word of introduction.
There is a price of admission, albeit a small one, to this fight,
for those who still think Lyn walks on water,. Without paying this
price, this fight will not be fun for you, will hold no interest,
might even induce mental illness (or worsen any such already
present). The price is this: you must concede that Lyn is mortal,
and therefore that he is not perfect, has made mistakes, and will
make more of them, and that you agree to be open-minded enough to
grant that if Lyn is shown, in his own words, to be blatantly
contradicting himself over a span of a few days or weeks, that this
will give you pause and open at least a crack, if not a deeper
fissure, in your kneejerk belief that whatever he says, in all
situations, has to be true.
And you really must pay this price, on pain of admitting that the
LC/LYM is a cult, and you are a willing member of it. Because your
whole mantra is to seek the truth, find universal principles, think
for yourself, be creative. If you confess to believing that Lyn is
incapable of error, you elevate him to a higher pedestal than the
pre-1875 popes, you affirm that, like the modern popes, he is
incapable of error, infallible—and in all matters, not just
matters of theology. Do you really believe that is true? Do you
really want to be telling that to the world, and to potential
recruits? If you do, you will be gate-crashing the big fight, and
while I can’t throw you out, you will be missing out on the fun.
Now, to the big fight.
In one corner we have LaRoucheApril11, as transcribed by Tony Papert,
the infamous briefing attack on “the print shop,” aka Ken
Kronberg. (See http://dennisking.org/kronberg3.htm)
In a second corner, we have LaRoucheApril18, Lyn’s first-known
written reaction/response to the Kronberg matter, in a probably
narrowly circulated memo. (See http://dennisking.org/kronberg6.htm
)
In a third corner, we have LaRoucheApril 20, in a second, perhaps
slightly more public, memo on l’affaire Kronberg. (See http://dennisking.org/kronberg5.htm
)
In the fourth corner, we have LaRoucheAug3, the memo reported
previously on the previous Larouche thread, which I can’t find
anywhere else on the web, so see post 163 from xlcr4life near the
end of the LaRouche Continued thread.
The issue concerns Lyn trying to keep his stories straight on the
PMR situation before, and after, Kronberg’s suicide. The line was
straight-forward on April 11: in the context of a screed against
Baby Boomers, summarizing what appears to have been a multi-hour
rant by LaRouche to an audience of LYMers, BBers were guilty of a
“moral breakdown in leadership,” and “the print shop (aka
Kronberg) was the worst.”
(to be continued)
|
larouchetruth
New member
Username:
larouchetruth
Post Number:
9
Registered:
8-2007
Posted From:
71.171.94.115
|
| Posted
on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 12:41 pm: |
|
In typical LaRouche
fashion, there are lots of missing parts without which this is not
an intelligible argument. In 1994, when Lyn came out of jail, “he
presented his solution to the sales force….People went screaming
out of the room.” What it was that LaRouche proposed to them is
not stated, nor implied, and one has to wonder a) what it was, and
b) how Lyn could be so impotent that he couldn’t get the sales
force to do it. But most importantly for today’s fight, Lyn
clearly said that Ken argued, against Lyn, that “the economy
won’t go under,” and “there will always be money there for
people smart enough to grab it,” meaning, that commercial
enterprises, of which PMR/WorldComp was the only one in the U.S.,
could always make a profit. Ken, as the only person in the “print
shop” who was on the NC and could have represented any policy
issues to Lyn, was clearly targeted. (Parenthetically, it is beyond
dispute and known to numerous members, that this was in any case far
from the first attack on Kronberg—it was rather the last straw for
him.) To doubt that Lyn’s message was that Kronberg was to blame
for his leading role in sabotaging Lyn’s strategy—whatever that
was—of overcoming financial problems, is to be really
self-delusional. So much for LaRoucheApril 18.
Parenthetically, as is well-known, LaRouche had no response to
Ken’s death. Nancy Spannaus penned the creditable encomium posted
on the website. It was only under pressure that he finally wrote
Ken’s wife, Molly, the letter that was then posted on the
website—amazingly, given what a dreadful, spiteful, awful letter
it was, which LaRouche and the leadership apparently don’t even
“get.” But it turns out that, like Stalin after the start of
Operation Barbarosa, when Stalin was absent from the public eye for
two weeks not because he was in shock, but because it took him that
long to figure out how to spin the debacle to deflect blame from
himself, Lyn’s absence from the field in terms of honoring
Kronberg’s contribution, did not mean Lyn wasn’t working on the
problem. An internal memo has been revealed from April 18, the day
before the funeral, and before his letter to Molly, which is very
interesting.
So, in LaRoucheApril18, suddenly, Lyn knows what absolutely nobody
else thought they knew then, or thinks they know now with any
certainty, namely, exactly why Ken committed suicide. LaRouche
states that “Evidence presently placed at my disposal has now
shown me the actually determining personal factor in the suicide.”
This little gem must be read in its entirety (it’s very short,
less than a single page, please read it now) to be believed. Lyn
knows, but won’t tell. But the evidence, “not so much
[revealing] the cause of Ken’s suicide,” but certain
“aggravating factors” traceable to the ‘90s when “Ken was
under the misdirection of Fernando Quijano and Uwe Friesecke,” is
there, only needing certain final additional research, before it can
be revealed.
Bingo. I mean, that really nails it. Ken committed suicide in 2007,
8-13 years after he was allegedly being misdirected by Quijano, long
gone as of 2007, and Friesecke, under attack for years and finally
gone this spring. How’s that for causality? Now, we all (I should
say, many of us) knew Ken. He wasn’t easily dominated, he was
supremely well-educated and intellectually secure. How anything from
Quijano and Friesecke years earlier could have had anything to do
with his suicide this year is a mystery we will have to wait for
Lyn’s promised partial revelation of what this influence
was…though don’t hold your breath, I strongly doubt it will ever
appear. But this, some weird spin where Lyn can claim definitive
knowledge of what allegedly drove him to suicide, is Lyn’s first
response to the suicide.
(to be continued)
|
larouchetruth
New member
Username:
larouchetruth
Post Number:
10
Registered:
8-2007
Posted From:
71.171.94.115
|
| Posted
on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Oh, and he says that
Nancy’s piece “truthfully in respect to what it includes”
“should be the only official reference to Ken’s passing made
publicly by our association at this time.” And Lyn has the
effrontery to talk of agape? LYMers, Kronberg was a member of
Lyn’s association for over 35 years, most of that time as a
leading member, whom Lyn knew extremely well. He didn’t quit, at
least other than as his suicide can be so interpreted. But since Lyn
doesn’t choose to publicly understand it that way, how are we to
understand Lyn’s failure to write a public item expressing his
sorrow, and his gratitude to Ken for his devoted service to Lyn’s
cause. His letter to Molly doesn’t count. He was talked into
writing it, and publishing it was not his idea.
LYMers, and you think LaRouche cares about you, thinks you are the
future of humanity? Like we thought he thought of us 30 years ago?
Like Kronberg thought Lyn cared about him? If he treats a devoted,
loyal leader like Ken Kronberg as not even deserving a personal,
public statement of sorrow and condolence, how can anyone believe
that what Lyn means by agape is practiced by him.
This point is not germaine to the LHL v LHL fight we are covering
today, but just had to be made.
To return to ringside, in the third corner we have the LaRouche of 2
days later than the above memo, LaRoucheApril20. This one, a little
longer but still pretty belief, should also be read in its entirety.
Several times, if the full effect is to be experienced. Elementary
logic is nowhere to be seen, as this not only contradicts the April
11 briefing message, but contradicts itself at several points—and
the illogicality grows on one only on second and third reading.
First of all, it is now specified that Quijano and Friesecke (does
anyone know if it is even remotely likely that these two were
working together on anything—without knowing the particulars, but
just their personalities, I would find this highly unexpected)
wrecked PMR from 1990-1999. In fact, PMR’s demise was “a
virtually inevitable calamity” since possibly as early as 1994.
Then, in the same paragraph, having outlived this forecast by 6
years, an ill-advised investment in 2001 “meant the end of PMR's
ability to continue to exist for long,” even though PMR actually
lasted for 6 more years. LYMers, is this making sense to you? Do you
think what LHL has written here does not constitute an incoherent
mishmash of charges that don’t make sense as a whole? If so, you
make a mockery of saying that you base yourselves on a belief in the
importance of fundamental scientific principles (which Lyn talks
incessantly about), since science above all requires a modicum of
reasoning ability and clear understanding of cause and
effect—these rantings by Lyn do not partake of rationality, and
crumble at the merest examination as the cranky charges of someone
who isn’t used to people actually thinking about what he says—or
he would have been called on such absurd, non sequitur-ial
statements long ago.
But it gets better. After blaming Quijano and Friesecke for
mismanagement, Lyn then credits “the minds of many of our
associates” for being “corrupted” by the belief that “there
will be lots of money being passed around for those clever enough to
tap into the flow." Now, this is the mindset of “many of our
associates,” where earlier, on April 11, this was the mindset of
Ken, aka “the print shop.” But with Ken’s suicide, oops, “I
guess we’d better change our public tune.” But not that much,
really, as Lyn continues, that this ideology, and “its effects on
policy-shaping in the printing operations as in the organization
itself,” contrived to put PMR into a “ruined situation” in
2000.
(to be continued)
|
larouchetruth
New member
Username:
larouchetruth
Post Number:
11
Registered:
8-2007
Posted From:
71.171.94.115
|
| Posted
on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 12:50 pm: |
|
OK, fast forward to
2007. But how can we? How did PMR get here at all? If PMR was ruined
in 2000, at the onset of the Bush recession, and had just moved to
major new quarters it couldn’t afford, how did it survive at all
until 2007? LYMers, you need to pay close attention here. You are
watching a verbal magician. Or perhaps a verbal three-card monte
expert. Now you see it, now you don’t. If you are not watching
carefully, Lyn appears to be making sense. But if you actually try
to find the thread of a coherent argument, that lives in
chronological reality, you will begin to see the sleight-of-hand at
work here. Let’s retrace our steps:
• By 1994, it was clear that PMR was doomed. This was before the
1994-1999 period when the mentality of making money was predominant.
• From 1990-1999, Quijano and Friesecke mismanaged business
affairs creating special problems for PMR (not clear if these were
the same problems caused by wrong ideology on the ease of making
money).
• In the same period, some members thought that money could be
made easily, which ideology was crucial in ruining PMR.
• In 2000, PMR was in a ruined state.
So, was it Quijano-Friesecke mismanagement, or Boomer money-making
ideology, that doomed PMR by 2000? Or was it the bad decision to
expand operations just when the market was tanking in 2001? Now,
granted, all three could have been involved. But LaRouche doesn’t
care to state an intelligible argument. It is enough to throw up a
bunch of “stuff” in the knowledge that his acolytes never apply
a single brain cell to the task of asking themselves if what he is
saying actually makes sense. LYMers, as presented, it doesn’t, it
really doesn’t.
And then the crowning anomaly: PMR stayed afloat for another 7 years
after having been ruined, taken on (anticipating the Aug. 3 memo)
huge new debt service and greatly raising its costs of production,
and faced a destroyed market environment. How exactly was this
possible, unless the stated facts about PMR c. 2000 were not as Lyn
stated. (What, are we to believe that Ken was actually a business
genius to keep this hopeless derelict afloat? Which is it, Lyn?) Lyn
is so used to just saying stuff like this, that doesn’t hang
together, and relying on an uncritical audience to get away with it.
But this memo has more to say. Suddenly, we are informed that
despite being doomed from as early as 1994, and being in a ruined
state in 2000, having expanded just as the market collapsed in 2001,
and having miraculously stayed in business for the succeeding 6
years, there was now a potential solution in sight. This can’t be
fairly paraphrased, so I reproduce the quote in full. Lyn writes:
“The only last-minute hope for saving PMR came from the new
conceptions agreed to between me and Ken Kronberg et al. during
recent months This solution depended chiefly on matching PMR's and
associated potential with the expansion of the market for LPAC
operations.”
This is fairly opaque, you must admit. Since PMR was a printing
company, and since it presumably wasn’t working to capacity, the
“expansion of the market” for LPAC operations (so
“operations” are now being sold in a market?) must, translated
into English, be intended to mean that LPAC was supposed to so
greatly increase its income generation that it could afford to print
huge amounts of literature that would bail out PMR?
(to be continued)
|
larouchetruth
New member
Username:
larouchetruth
Post Number:
12
Registered:
8-2007
Posted From:
71.171.94.115
|
| Posted
on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Leaving aside the
unreality of such a “new conception”—that LPAC had the
remotest possibility of raising, what, well over a million dollars,
in a few months, or that LPAC could possibly make use of a million
dollars worth of literature—which unreality suggests no such
“new conception” in fact existed, but be that as it may—what
follows takes the cake. It requires an extended quote, to take in
the full enormity of blameshifting this sudden invention of a
last-minute possible “fix” for PMR enables Lyn to engage in:
“With the failure to support that LPAC program by parts of our
assoc'n, the lack of support from among our veterans, removed the
last hope of success for our collaboration with Ken Kronberg on this
basis, and, thus, created a hopeless situation for an already,
otherwise doomed, PMR .
“The failure among far too many among our BBs, to find an adequate
response to the challenge within themselves, did not actually kill
Ken; there were other causes. However, your failure to muster to the
challenge which I and others posed to you, could have been helpful
to those among us trying to help him overcome his pessimism. You owe
it to his memory now, to honor the lesson which you should have
learned while he still lived.”
I get sick every time I reread this. So, there was a solution to PMR
that would, presumably, have meant that Kronberg wouldn’t have
committed suicide, but the BBers sabotaged it by refusing to support
this LPAC program, whatever that actually was. So, the BBers “did
not actually kill Ken,” but clearly contributed. Lyn’s bugaboo
of the moment, the old-timers in the LC itself, were to blame for
Ken’s death!!! Truly stunning. And the only way BBs can atone for
this crime is doing now what they refused to do then? Whatever that
was?
And what was it, precisely, that the BBs didn’t do? As usual,
“he don’t say.”
And, of course, we have the new added supposed information, nowhere
previously mentioned, that Ken was stuck in “pessimism,” which
Lyn, and unnamed others, were trying to help him overcome? Exactly
what was Lyn doing to help Ken overcome his pessimism? Let me guess.
I’ll bet being cited on April 11 for being the “worst”
offender in destroying the present fundraising performance was item
number one on Lyn’s list of therapeutic interventions.
LYMers, and other LCers, have you eyes to read, minds to comprehend,
and souls to feel? LaRoucheApril20 asserts that Lyn was trying to
help Ken overcome his (alleged) pessimism. Do you attack someone who
is pessimistic, which sounds like a euphemism for depression
(clinical depression, not economic depression), by saying what Lyn
told the April 10 LYM meeting about Ken’s responsibility for
wrecking the prospects for saving humanity from extinction, and then
having it reported in the daily briefing? A briefing in which,
don’t forget, he also posed that BBers who can’t get with the
program might as well commit suicide?
These two assertions, the one from April 10-11, and the one about
trying to help Ken overcome his pessimism, simply cannot live in the
same universe. If Lyn had been trying to help Ken, he simply
wouldn’t have attacked him at all, in any context, must less have
it reported publicly afterward. Since the April 10-11 attack is
consistent with many previous attacks of a similar vein, there is no
question: Lyn is simply lying in LaRoucheApril20. Probably lying
about everything, not just this, but this for certain.
I will leave LaRoucheApril20 for now, due to the length of this
extended post, but the final four paragraphs would merit additional
commentary in their own post.
(to be continued)
|
larouchetruth
New member
Username:
larouchetruth
Post Number:
13
Registered:
8-2007
Posted From:
71.171.94.115
|
| Posted
on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Which brings us to the
final corner, LaRoucheAugust3 (I don’t know if this was exactly
Aug. 3, but it was apparently around that time). Eaglebeak has fully
commented on this, proving, in summary, that most of it is lies to
begin with. The biggest single point to repeat is that even if LPAC
and other political committees had to pay market prices to PMR (for
FEC legal reasons, not mentioned by LaRouche)—if that is even
true, these payments were only a small part of the work that PMR did
for Lyn’s entities: the vast bulk was printing/mailing EIR, New
Fed, Fidelio, 21st Century, various pamphlets and books, and
leaflets. It was these that were not paid at all, or well below the
cost of production, that ensured that PMR eventually had to fold.
Here, LaRouche is in his eye-gauging mode. I say LaRouche, because
it has his ring, but it could have been a flunky on his orders,
which wouldn’t change anything. But I vote for LaRouche. Anyway,
for openers, we have his tired stock in trade: tell lies about who
is doing something, create a strawman, and attack the strawman,
hoping to divert attention from the real issue. I don’t know from
nothin’ about whether the AFF has any connection to FACTnet, and
don’t much care. Dennis King doesn’t post there, to my
knowledge. John Train, oh, come one, what a tired whipping boy.
LYMers, do you even know who he is? The bogeyman? Do you believe in
bogeymen?
What I do know, and any medium- to long-term ex-members know, is
that every ex-member posting here is basing themselves on what they
experienced and knew from their time in the LC, plus whatever they
may have heard since. To glibly say that King “and others” never
knew Ken and have no idea about the financial relationship between
LC entities and PMR, could well be true, and is totally irrelevant.
We DID know Ken, some of us pretty well. And we also
knew—everybody knew, pretty much from day 1 for PMR and WorldComp—that
LC was NEVER able to pay PMR even for costs of production of LC
literature.
This is the crux of the matter, period. And Lyn knows it, and only
in this memo does he finally acknowledge what this is all about. The
operative admission comes in the first paragraph, where Lyn says
that “King and others…claim that the movement “looted” PMR
to ruin.” Well, those “others” include many people posting
here, and we know it from personal knowledge while we were in, and
second-hand knowledge from those still in who have passed that
information to some of us, confirming that nothing changed after
each of us left.
LYMers, you can be forgiven for not knowing this undeniable fact.
How could you? Boomer members reading this, YOU do know it. How can
you say you base yourself on truth, and then let Lyn get away with
this lie? How do you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning?
Because, to wrap up this first LHL v LHL contest, here is the nub.
PMR was doomed by the organization’s refusal to pay even cost of
production to PMR for most publications it printed. To cover up this
reality, LaRouche has had to shift the blame—starting well before
Ken’s death—to others, including Ken himself, the BBers who
sabotaged Lyn’s “new conceptions” on how to raise money, Uwe
Friesecke, Fernando Quijano, ex-members, etc. It was clear that with
PMR clearly about to shut its doors, making it impossible to
continue printing much literature at all, including even EIR, the
main money-maker for the LC since the mid-80s, something had to be
done, and presto, a “solution” was found: the web.
(to be continued)
|
larouchetruth
New member
Username:
larouchetruth
Post Number:
14
Registered:
8-2007
Posted From:
71.171.94.115
|
| Posted
on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 1:02 pm: |
|
I don’t know how
many people know, but in the same April 11 briefing, or possibly a
couple of days earlier, was an extensive discussion of shifting all
EIR subs to web subscriptions, hailing this as a major advance. It
detailed how all possible EIR subs were to be converted to web subs,
and that no new print copy subs were to be sold, so they can phase
out hard copy EIR as quickly as possible.
So, with PMR going under, and the ability of LC to have much printed
material, even for the card table shrines, about to disappear, a
scape-goat was needed, and Ken, and PMR, was it. Hence, the clear
message of the April 11 briefing. While no one will ever know
Ken’s exact motivation, or motivations, it is likely true that at
the very least, Ken knew that his suicide was the last thing that
Lyn expected, and would function after his death as the Cranes of
Ibykus functioned in the Schiller poem. Everything Lyn has written
since (that we know of) has been his desperate attempt to deflect
from himself his role in driving Ken to suicide as part of his
ham-handed effort to cover his own behind for the demise of the
ability of his movement to print anything again.
The Cranes of Ibykus are air-borne, and Lyn is scrambling to keep
ahead of the blow-back from his own mis-deeds that sent them aloft.
Another literary reference is apt here: “Oh, the tangled web we
weave when first we practice to deceive.” LaRouche’s web is
getting more and more tangled with every new memo on the subject.
Surely, especially those who have only invested a few months to a
few years to his cause, can still manage to see this web for what it
is. For if Lyn is capable of blatantly lying on this matter, then
where else is he lying, or at least, not telling the truth? There is
a cost for claiming to be Infallible. One proven case of
fallibility, or even worse, outright lying, leads the whole
edifice—can I call it “lattice”—to crumble, hopefully
freeing those able to escape the falling rubble.
End of Round 1 of LHL v LHL. Stay tuned for later rounds on this
same channel. |