LaRouche Movement a Cult, says fmr Volunteer
August 29, 2013
For our reader, the LaRouche movement was part
Hare Krishna cult, part first-rate university.
"There was a untenable paradox in the air: How could the youth be saved when a lifelong contribution to the movement like Ken's couldn't spare him from Lyn's contempt? "
I know it's tempting to link to larouchePAC articles, but as former Larouchie myself, you may easily just toss the thing away. It will only hurt your credibility.
It is a cult... because Lyndon Larouche is really just like a Guru in his movement. We can't contradict him, and there's as much internal power structure fighting (or should I say purges by him) as there is International intelligence gathering.
(Kronberg with wife, Molly. Kronberg had a printing business that did the Larouche publications.)
I became convinced of this when Kenneth Kronberg committed suicide. He was a longtime contributor to his movement, and assumed debts for many of Lyndon's publications. (Ken was the Editor of Fidelio magazine). When all this was too much to bear (as most of Lyndon's publications are mostly not profitable) Ken killed himself when Lyndon told us (the youth) that babyboomer's should simply commit suicide. So he did. What did Kenneth have as eulogy from Lyndon? Nothing. Nada. Simple contempt (and attacks) for him for having creating havoc in HIS movement.
When you invest your life, your money, your integrity for someone who in the end tells you to commit suicide, there just no way you should respect him anymore.
By the way, Larouche calling for the impeachment of the President is nothing new. This polemic has been the one catching my interest in 2003. What is Lyndon saying 10 years later? SAME THING!! Impeach the president! The novelty and impact fades the more you use it. He's been telling us about the economic crash for a much longer time.
You know.. A broken clock still gives you the right time twice a day.
Although I respect the way he wanted the youth to educate themselves (reading only original papers of discoverers.) I guess his Pride has taken to his head too much. Sad.
Happily, I realized I should only trust and humble myself before Christ. I hope he does too before he dies...
My involvement in the Larouche Movement was at quite a low level, and it's not really "bad" per se. I am grateful for having had this experience. I am now much more aware of crucial matters than most people I encounter (mathematics, economics, arts, history) due to my involvement. So my experience was more positive than negative. (Without my Larouche experience, I probably wouldn't have followed your writing Henry.)
I left mostly because I wanted to go back to a normal life and to have a family (which is rather impossible when living in that movement).
But my experience was good because EVERYDAY, we would be practicing our voice to sing in "Bel Canto" method (the method of the Renaissance). We would read Classics in groups, either be Socrates' Republic, Friedrich Schiller's plays, the Fundamental theorem of Algebra from Carl Freidrich Gauss or the Habilitation Dissertation from Bernard Riemann, or Gottfreid Leibniz's Monadology, calculus or metaphysics. Constitutional papers was also read like the Federalist papers and so on. Geometrical papers were also read and practiced.
The Larouche movement was my university. We were briefed every morning (morning briefings) on how the political landscape was evolving and what would be our position, and how to be efficient. This helped our organizing in the streets. I thought we would change the world for the better.
But at some point.. I had used up all my savings and wanted to get back to a normal life. I still attended some classes, read Lyn's papers, organized from time to time.
(left. Kronberg committed suicide by jumping off a busy freeway bridge)
KEN KRONBERG'S DEATH
But when Kenneth Kronberg died in 2007 and I saw the briefings following his death, I realized how lucky I was not to be forced to follow the narrative. There was no compassion for Ken and gratitude for his lifelong contribution. The youth group had to rationalize Ken's death in terms of Lyn's contempt against Baby Boomers. The gist was that Baby Boomers had no idea how to create wealth (or that they only know how to consume, instead of producing).
There was a untenable paradox in the air: How could the youth think they could be saved when a lifelong contribution to the movement couldn't spare him from Lyn's contempt? So what could spare you? This is where the cult thing comes up. I guess you have to follow everything Lyn's says. Even if you have to crumble under major debt ON BEHALF OF HIM doesn't mean you'll get his respect. Just thinking about this makes me puke.
Lyn created a tension between the youth and the Baby Boomers. The Baby Boomers had to work hard trying to get donations (in telephone boiler rooms) while the youth were outside on the streets trying to persuade people and sell books. But Lyn kept the tension that the youth were doing "right" by singing in the street, while Baby Boomers were "wrong" because they could never grasp the idea of being productive.
This tension could lead to "purges" from Lyn. At some point he would simply fire a bunch of people. We would always be told what to think at the morning briefings. We would never get the other side of the story. I was really sad when I heard that Jonathan Tennenbaum was in a group that got "fired". Jonathan Tennenbaum was probably the best science guy we ever had. He was teaching the youth about scientific history, method and debates, all in a humorous fashion. I just can't understand why Lyn would get rid of him when he was such an asset.
[There is a large percentage of Jews in his movement. When you look at names of leaders - Jeffrey Steinberg - Debra Freeman - Phil Rubinstein - Ken Kronberg, Jews are a main part of the movement. Jews are very idealistic and guru prone. I wouldn't say they are Zionist though because we were told Zionism was a control mechanism from "London." He's mostly in agreement with you on this subject except the satanic part. The whole time I was organizing (roughly 2 years), I never heard of Satanism or Luciferian doctrine. Maybe that's the whole point. Attract people with great ideas while diverting them from the real problem: Satanism in secret societies / politics. You probably won't ever see the word Satan / Satanism or Lucifer in most of the literature. If those words are there, they are not evoking the same seriousness as your articles.]
When reading through anti-Larouche forums, I guess the "purges" were nothing new. This keeps a tension going inside the group so that Lyn could have some leverage to go against either parties if push came to shove against HIM. (Usually this involved people high in the movement as they also show leadership). I guess this is why I could call this a cult. The leader has somehow power over his disciples, however it is applied.
But it is not exactly a cult because we can leave whenever we want. We may be shamed by peers who stay in the movement, but I didn't value the shame as I didn't respect Lyn anymore.
In the end, I feel sorry for Lyndon. Having written "the science of christian economy", I think it is another trick to deceive people that he is Christian. Having no humility himself, I think he is light years away from the kingdom of God, which should be inside each and every one of us.
Related - The Death of Ken Kronberg
Makow comment - Thank you "Belantorzorius." Some of the best historical research available anywhere has come out of the Larouche movement: the works of Jeff Steinberg, Anton Chaikin, Webster Tarpley and Carol White to be specific. I briefly supported Larouche but was turned off by the constant telephone solicitations from an intense NYC Jew always connected with an imminent hyped up "crisis" ; and the naivety of Larouche and his followers in regard to FDR. I recall this Larouche booklet "Satan's Children" ; so it shows there is a disconnect between having an awareness of evil and personifying goodness.
First Comment from Deadeye Dick:
While I have never been associated with the LaRouche organization, I am associated with a number of former "LaRouchies" who would make similar criticisms about LaRouche's personality and agenda.
However, I would join Steve and Tom in cautioning your readers against throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
If you want to see the "real" LaRouche, treat yourself to the archived copies of "The Campaigner," "Fidelio" and "Executive Intelligence Review" (free online in various places) from the decades before LaRouche's imprisonment. Read "Dope, Inc.", Tarpley's Bush biography or Chaitkin's "Treason in America". Look up some lectures on YouTube (ie Chaitkin's "Militias, Empire & Subversion") You'll come away with an education and basis for further learning that FAR surpasses anything found in today's "conspiracy" community.
The value of classic "LaRouche" is not just the details, which were the hard-fought product of original research and relationship building long before the internet made us all armchair scholars. But the big picture that shines through will immunize you against a lot of b.s. that will otherwise waste your precious time as a seeker of the truth.
Remember that LaRouche - not Alex Jones - was a political prisoner for 8 YEARS. This was at a time when his organization was getting people elected to office, was feared enough to be parodied on Saturday Night Live, and was briefing the Reagan administration on intelligence matters.
Pre- and post-imprisonment LaRouche are two very different things. What I am told consistently is that after LaRouche got out of prison, nothing was the same. Either he made a dirty deal for his freedom, went nuts or some combination of the two. Typical of this is blaming 9/11 on the Saudis, campaigning against Gaddafi, or focusing intensely on the relatively minor evils of Obamacare, while neglecting other more pressing issues. There's an article called "why we left" by a group of recent ex-LaRouchies that displays some of the nuttiness of the organization in its current form.
I have benefited tremendously from my study of "LaRouche" materials, which are the collective work of a large number of people, the intelligence and knowledge of many of whom dwarfs today's sloppy, agenda-driven "experts" like David Icke and Alex Jones. Compare the nihilistic attitude of your commenter Al, who typically of conspiracy theorists says "Groups are absolutely useless," with that of someone like Webster Tarpley ("The pessimism of the intellect, the optimism of the will").
As for the "luciferian" angle, I would recommend a Campaigner article called "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites." This stuff wasn't invented by Stanley Kubrick or Manly P. Hall. LaRouche will show you the Roman and Babylonian origins.
Second Comment from Dan:
During the 80's through 2009 I had an "approach / avoidance" relationship to LaRouche's material.
His own writing could be extremely captivating and draw on in for a time, but LaRouche always took his tangents abruptly into outer space in the end. Then there's also the history of the career of his cult of American University student-type misfits who get trapped in the gravitational pull of this megalomaniac's charismatic ego. Today the man is 90 years old, yet retains the vigor and physical stature he had in his 60's. He is truly a dominant "mensche" and that's part of his charisma.
If you study the long bio of LaRouche you find disturbing episodes that make clear why he was passed over by the kingmakers that pick the President. LaRouche always had ambitions to personally lead the United States into the LaRouchian version of globalism - a technocracy with egg heads like himself fulfilling Plato's Utopia.
It creepy that he started out a Trotskyist Marxist - for my money the most insidious kind of Marxism for it works like a euphoric drug but the side effects are hell. Typically for Washington power seekers LaRouche seems devoid of humility and genuine compassion or gratitude for his devoted followers. He was at the peak of his prime during the 1980's and was a gadfly of the Reagan Administration.
G.H.W.Bush had no patience for LaRouche's potential antics for Bush's presidential run in 1988, so he got LaRouche raided and hauled off in chains by 400 law enforcement officers. He convicted of 11 counts of mail fraud, conspiracy, etc. etc. He was actually locked up in prison from 1988 to 1994 - that's eight years. He was sentenced to much longer, but none other the HILARY CLINTON used her clout as First Lady (and Illuminati 'Dark Mother') to spring him. That's how the great LaRouche became beholden to the Clinton - Bush crime family. So he's really not to be trusted anymore, if he ever was trustworthy.