EX-FOLLOWERS OF LAROUCHE BLAST HIS CALLOUS ATTITUDE TO JEREMIAH DUGGAN'S DEATH

"What kind of a man, desperate to exculpate himself, blames a bereaved mother for her son's death--and somehow thinks that makes him look good?"

[The below postings from Factnet were in response to a September 25, 2007 LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC) statement claiming that the LaRouche organization had nothing to do with the death of Jeremiah Duggan. The statement, posted on the LPAC website, was written by Bruce Director, a LaRouche follower for over 35 years, and was part of an effort, coordinated by Mr. Director, to raise questions in the United Kingdom about the truthfulness of Jeremiah's mother and her supporters--with the ultimate aim of squashing any efforts to persuade the British government to pressure the German government to launch a full investigation of Jeremiah's death. (The 22-year-old university student died in March 2003 under mysterious circumstances while attending an indoctrination course in Wiesbaden, Germany, sponsored by LaRouche's Schiller Institute.)

The Factnet postings expressing outrage over the LPAC statement and other examples of LaRouche's spin-doctoring were written by three ex-members (and a close relative of a current longtime member) who possess in the aggregate over 50 years of experience of life in and around LaRouche's hostile and paranoid cult-world. If people with this depth of knowledge believe there's a strong possibility that Jeremiah was murdered, that is yet another powerful reason for supporting the call for a new investigation.[FN 1]

Much of the online discussion is focussed on why Jeremiah's name was misspelled in the title of the LPAC statement and why LaRouche himself had repeatedly referred to Jeremiah as "Jeremy." I agree with the ex-LCers that these mistakes were deliberate; for my own analysis of LaRouche's forgetfulness of names and his publication's propensity for accidentally-on-purpose typos re Jeremiah's name, read [TO COME].--DK]

"sancho," Sept. 25, 2007 - 3:28 pm:

[Sancho begins by providing a link (see above) to the LPAC statement, which had been posted under the title "The Jermiah Duggan Case--the Facts." The misspelling in the title was later corrected by LPAC, but was retained in the file name.]

The terse statement concludes: "The Schiller Institute has always maintained that it had no involvement whatsoever in Jeremiah's death, and has expressed its sympathy to the Duggan family."

What sympathy? Since the murder, the Duggan family has been treated by LaRouche with nothing but his characteristic brutality--the same brutality with which Jeremiah was murdered by LaRouche agents. Der Helga's good German people have once again likewise been found wanting in humanity. La plus ca change, la plus c'est la meme chose.

"sancho," Sept. 25, 2007 - 3:31 pm:

Also note the intentional misspelling of Jeremiah's name at the heading. LaRouche has himself repeatedly called the gifted young man "Jeremy."[FN 2] This is sympathy?

"shadok," Sept. 25, 2007 - 4:19 pm:

Sancho, I don't think there is any "sympathy" here. Jeremiah sounds too...Jewish!

His name comes from the (Jewish) Prophet Jeremiah. He is one of the most famous and important Prophets in Judaism.

Jeremiah the Prophet was not only famous for his prophecies but also for his attacks against... the false prophets! He wrote:

This is what the Lord Almighty says: "Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord. I did not send these prophets, yet they have run with their message; I did not speak to them, yet they have prophesied. But if they had stood in my counsel, they would have proclaimed my words to my people and would have turned them from their evil ways and from their evil deeds!" (Jer. 23:16-22)

Jeremiah said also that their punishment under the Law was death. (Jer. 28:15-17)

If this is not the real reason, at least Lyn has now a valid one not to call him Jeremiah...Didn't Jeremiah Duggan dare to challenge him?

"sancho," Sept. 25, 2007 - 4:56 pm:

I have been thinking the same thing, but find it hard to imagine anyone so venal, so...satanic. But you've reminded me of who we're dealing with here. Thanks, shadok.

"eaglebeak," Sept. 25, 2007 - 4:59 pm:

It's a foul lie that the Schiller Institute has expressed its sympathy to the family. Instead, LaRouche actually blamed Erica Duggan for Jeremiah's death--he claimed that in the last phone call Jeremiah made, his mother Erica had somehow said something that made Jeremiah "commit suicide by running into traffic."

Bruce Director is covering himself in odium by pushing this trash. (It was Bruce who wrote the piece on the LPAC site.)

1. They can't spell Jeremiah's name right--in the headline, yet. That's a way of killing him a second time.

2. Shadok is probably right that the reason LaRouche insisted previously (as I noted when it first occurred) on calling Jeremiah "Jeremy" is that LaRouche cannot stand using the Biblical Hebrew name.

3. LaRouche blamed Erica Duggan for driving her son to "suicide" with some remark of hers on the phone--the height of immoral and irresponsible narcissistic kindergarten psychology: "I didn't break the glass, Mommy! Daddy broke the glass!"

(And by the way, the proof of the pudding lies in the fact that LaRouche did precisely the same thing to Molly Kronberg, blaming her for Ken Kronberg's death with the ridiculous "theory" that her 2004 contributions to Bush drove her husband to suicide three years later.)

So this is LaRouche's pattern.

4. If the Schiller Institute had nothing to do with Jeremiah's death, what do they care if the investigation is opened again?

5. If the Schiller Institute had nothing to do with Jeremiah's death, why did its various members, like Ortrun Cramer and Jonathan Tennenbaum, behave so bizarrely after the death?

Why did Ortrun Cramer hand into the police Jeremiah's passport, stained with his blood (read here)?

"Shadok," Sept. 25, 2007 - 6:03 pm:

Eaglebeak, I agree calling him "Jeremy" is like "killing him a second time." It is negating his name, his Jewish name, and it certainly demonstrates how little respect they have for him and his family.

To "kill a second time" is after all something LaRouche knows well. He negated the murder of millions of Jews by the Nazis: he negated they ever existed. He killed them a second time.

Will he try to convince us Jeremiah never existed? I'm sure he would if he could--if all this affair could be simply forgotten and buried once and for all. That's why he hates Jeremiah's mother so much....

Same thing for Ken Kronberg: Couldn't all of this be simply forgotten? Isn't amnesia supposed to be part of the LaRouche method?

Now, what is interesting is how the org.'s editors will react to this inability to "name the name" properly.

Either way, they lose.

"earnest_one," Sept. 25, 2007 - 8:22 pm:

Eaglebeak asked: "If the Schiller Institute had nothing to do with Jeremiah's death, why did its various members, like Ortrun Cramer and Jonathan Tennenbaum, behave so bizarrely after the death?"

Eaglebeak, forget Cramer, who is obviously already disturbed. What bizarre behavior did J. Tennenbaum engage in after Jeremiah's death (other than not resigning on the spot)?

"eaglebeak," Sept. 25, 2007 - 10:32 pm:

Cramer and Tennenbaum were the two Schiller Institute leaders who talked to Jeremiah's family after his death, with a view to "explaining" what was going on. Tennenbaum went on about what courage it took for Jeremiah to say publicly he was Jewish....

Why? Did that mean the Schiller Institute was by definition a hostile environment in which to be Jewish? What on earth was he talking about?

A very peculiar approach indeed, especially so since Tennenbaum himself is Jewish, or at least of a Jewish family, although one might say not very strongly self-identified as Jewish.

"earnest_one," Sept. 26, 2007 - 12:19 am:

To eaglebeak:

First: The facts here are reported only by Erica Duggan. It seems altogether unlikely that Jonathan Tennenbaum (JT) will be issuing any public statements, especially now that he appears to have left.

Second: Assuming that Erica Duggan's report is accurate (and we have every reason to believe it is), then JT's statement about Jeremiah's "courage" is hardly bizarre--it is simply correct. The Schiller Institute is well known to be hostile to various Jewish figures, past, present, and future. This is simply a fact, documented in many places. But they are also hostile toward non-Jewish figures, including major scientists.

Third: The bizarre point that you bring up appears to rest on the question of why JT would be associated with a group openly hostile to Jews, while he himself is/was a Jew or at least had some sort of Jewish background.

But this is far LESS bizarre than JT's apparent support--as LaRouche's so-called "science advisor"--of LaRouche's convoluted, confused, and wholly contemptible views about a whole range of scientific issues, well within the grasp of JT and well beyond the grasp of LaRouche. What honest scientist--especially a mathematician--could say that Newton was a fraud, or rail against Euler, a towering figure in the history of science? This is bizarre beyond measure.

A monkey, given enough time, can type out semi-cogent prose--strings of words that may look like "thoughts" to outside observers while those in the know know that it is simply random output, nonsense.

It appears that LaRouche was the monkey and that JT (a highly trained scientist) "interpreted" much of this nonsense for the LC masses, giving it his "official" blessing. Now, 30 years of fulfilling THAT function seems far more bizarre than JT's role in the Duggan case, although the full facts are hardly in.

My own hypothesis is that JT was ordered by LaRouche and HZL [Helga Zepp-LaRouche] to help handle this case (given that he can appear, on command, to act like a genuine human being--something that sets him apart from some/most of the others).

Perhaps the remark about "courage" was a confession, of sorts, that JT wished he were more courageous (about a host of matters).

If true, then this is far sadder then it is bizarre. And, of course, nothing compares to the Duggan tragedy itself; it is both bizarre and sad.

One thing is clear: LaRouche et al are pieces of human excrement possessing less than an infinitesimal amount of moral fitness. No measurement device extant can go that low.[FN 3]

"eaglebeak," Sept. 26, 2007 - 8:05 am:

Earnest One, what I consider bizarre is that Tennenbaum would actually SAY this to Jeremiah's family--would be sufficiently stupid to say flatly that it took courage to identify oneself as a Jew in the midst of a Schiller Institute claque.

It's one thing for it to be true--and it's another to concede that it's true.

Otherwise, and of far more significance in the Duggan case: What kind of a man, desperate to exculpate himself, blames a bereaved mother for her son's death--and somehow thinks that makes him look good?

What kind of a man blames a bereaved widow for her husband's suicide--especially when the ground is littered with this man's own attacks on the suicide--and thinks that gets him off the hook?

The theme of exculpation or exoneration is a very big one in LaRouche's interior (I don't say "mental") life.

Therein lies the secret to his outrageous performance throughout the arrests, indictments, and trials of the late 1980s.[FN 4] LaRouche didn't testify at his own trial (long story--I'll tell it sometime) and was convinced later that if he'd only taken the stand and waved his wand over the jury, he would have been acquitted.

After that, he viewed every subsequent trial--that's other people's trials--as a forum for him to get on the witness stand and testify to exculpate himself and somehow dispel the Alexandria guilty verdict.

He tried to do it in Rochelle Ascher's trial, but her lawyer declined.

He did it in the New York trial, where he convinced the jury that there was in fact a conspiracy, and that he was the subject. In the melee that surrounded the New York trial, in which two defendants (Molly Kronberg and one other) made motions to sever in order to get away from this maniac's testimony, it became clear that LaRouche was using this setting to try to exculpate himself from what he (wrongly) understood to be the key charges and issues in Alexandria.

He did it again in Billington's trial--he made a total hash of that, with the well-known results.

He did it again in Don Phau's trial, again alienating and infuriating the trial lawyers.

And he finished up with a bravura performance in the Gallagher, Gallagher, Hecht trial.

Am I forgetting anybody?

Here's the thing: All of these people could have taken pleas--as the later defendants did--and avoided felony convictions and jail time, if it weren't for LaRouche's insistence that the trials be held because he needed to testify.

The theme? "Don't blame me--I didn't do it. I think maybe THESE people [the defendants] did it, but I didn't."

So his attacks on Mrs. Duggan weren't too surprising to veteran LaRouche watchers. His attacks on Molly Kronberg were so predictable that I predicted them in earlier posts on Factnet. (Anyone who knows LaRouche knew he HAD to get around to blaming her sooner or later. He was especially miffed, of course, that SHE blamed HIM.)

And of course, when his colleagues and longtime loyal followers were serving lengthy prison sentences, LaRouche was obsessing about getting President Clinton to "exonerate" him. Not pardon, but exonerate. The guy was such a fool he didn't seem to realize that exoneration could come only with a trial, and trust me, if he had ever gotten a new trial, he wouldn't have been "exonerated."

But it was actually the case that people weren't allowed to worry too much about Ascher, Billington, Phau, Gallagher, Gallagher and Hecht--because LaRouche's "exoneration" was the only thing on the agenda.

earnest_one, Sept. 26, 2007 - 5:23 pm:

Eaglebeak asks:

What kind of a man, desperate to exculpate himself, blames a bereaved mother for her son's death--and somehow thinks that makes him look good?

What kind of a man blames a bereaved widow for her husband's suicide--especially when the ground is littered with this man's own attacks on the suicide--and thinks that gets him off the hook?

As indicated previously--and often--my views on this are clear. I donít believe in calling people subhuman but if anyone, anywhere, meets that definition, it is LaRouche.

About those fake spellings ("Jeremy," "Jermiah," etc.):

Weeks ago, I floated the explanation that this was an attempt to reduce search engine hits and thus keep people (Yutes, in particular[FN 5]) from learning the true story. Here the motivation was practical.

Other explanations have been given, above.

I now have a more sinister, psychologically-based interpretation.

Erica Duggan reports that prior to Jeremiahís trip to Germany, she was unable to locate LaRouche on the Internet because she didnít have LaRoucheís correct spelling.

I now think that the various (purposeful) misspellings of "Jeremiah" are motivated by pure sadism and vindictiveness--an attempt to remind Mrs. Duggan of her original "failure" to locate the goods on LaRouche and thus possibly warn Jeremiah. Again, this pins the blame on her.

There is a sick, twisted "reciprocity" or "symmetry" at work here.

So, in answer to your question: "What type of man...?" I can only say NO MAN at all--only a liar and a coward and an egotist and a sadist.

In short, human excrement or, perhaps, subhuman excrement.[FN 6]

More to the point: What social/psychological mechanism allows OTHER people to compromise their integrity so thoroughly that they continue to support this fraud?

LaRouche would not exist without sycophant supporters.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes by D. King:

[1] In an Oct. 17, 2007, Factnet discussion, additional ex-members expressed strong opinions on the LaRouche organization's probable involvement in Jeremiah Duggan's death; read here.

[2] For instance, in "LaRouche: German Police Discredit Cheney's Rewarmed Duggan Hoax," Executive Intelligence Review, Dec. 15, 2006, Jeremiah's name is consistently misspelled as "Jeremy" in the context of a cruel propaganda assault on his mother that blames her for Jeremiah's death (read it here). Given that the LaRouche organization at this point had been embroiled in three-and-a-half years of nonstop controversy over Jeremiah's death, I find it difficult to believe that the editors of EIR and LaRouche himself (a man with a prodigious memory) would not yet have known Jeremiah's first name. "Earnest_One" is probably right--the misspelling was part of the LaRouche organization's attempt to bait and demoralize Erica Duggan. Given this interpretation, the subtext would be roughly as follows: "Ha, ha. Your son's life and death were so insignificant to us that we can't be bothered with spelling his name right. We can mock you and insult you at will--and there's nothing you can do about it."

[3] LaRouche has said worse things about his own ex-followers and various journalists and political figures. For instance, when my book Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism was published in 1989, LaRouche, writing in his weekly newsmagazine, employed a much cruder epithet than "human excrement"--one beginning with a "t"--to describe me. And I certainly will not fault "Earnest_One" for questioning LaRouche's "moral fitness." LaRouche has himself said repeatedly that those who disagree with his self-described neo-Platonic humanist ideology--and fail to respond to his alarmist calls to action--lack the "moral fitness to survive." (Just go to google, type in larouche moral fitness survive, and click the search button--you'll be amazed how many hits you get. And google is only accessing the very small fraction of the LaRouche organization's 40-year propaganda output that currently exists in electronic form and is also accessible to search-engine spiders.)

[4] What follows here may be difficult to follow for a reader unfamiliar with the LaRouche organization's history of legal problems. Eaglebeak is referring to successful prosecutions of members of the organization in three separate venues in the late 1980s. LaRouche and six associates were convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud in U.S. Federal Court in Alexandria, VA. Six LaRouche associates were convicted at trial (while two others pleaded guilty) in securities fraud cases prosecuted in Virginia state courts in Leesburg and Roanoke. Three LaRouche associates were convicted of conspiracy to defraud in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan. Because LaRouche blocked his followers from seeking plea bargains, and insisted on testifying at their trials to puff up his own ego (with no concern for the effect on the juries), some of those convicted ended up serving much longer sentences than LaRouche himself. An excellent summary of the LaRouche criminal trials is available on Wikipedia; read here.

[5] Some of the ex-LaRouche followers on Factnet refer to today's LaRouche Youth Movement members as "yutes," slang for young adults. Others avoid the term, regarding it as somewhat demeaning. I must say that, as used in some postings, it does seem to imply that the youngsters in today's movement are not quite as bright or up-to-snuff as those former members who now post on Factnet were (or believe themselves to have been) when they joined the movement in the 1970s.

[6] See FN 3 above. And I might add that LaRouche has spent over three decades ranting against various types of subhumans, including a supposed alien species with mostly Jewish surnames that he says parasites off the human race. (Read here and here.) He thus can hardly complain when an individual who's been personally traumatized by the cult's fanaticism (and has witnessed a close family member remain a virtual slave of LaRouche for decades) turns such language against LaRouche himself.

RETURN TO MAIN PAGE