EX-FOLLOWERS OF LAROUCHE RESPOND TO HIS SLIMING OF MOLLY KRONBERG

From the FACT Net message board, Aug. 20-23; for latest postings below re: LaRouche's Aug. 18 "no guilt" memo, click HERE

I. "How sick can this cult be?"

"xlcr4life," Monday, August 20, 2007 - 6:49 am:

Okay, everyone. The one thing which has been consistent with the cult is how they have not yet reached the bottom of depravity and creepiness. Lyn takes the depravity while the LaRouche Youth Movement takes the creepiness level.

Some Plain Facts Once Again:

According to Federal Election Commission records, Marielle Kronberg, through 6/22/2004 had contributed $775.00 to the Bush-Cheney campaign for re-election. According to the same FEC records, on April 4, 2005, Marielle Kronberg contributed $250 to the Republican National Committee. A simple Internet Google search on Marielle Kronberg's name pulls up data assembled by Fundrace on the Huffington Post stating that Kronberg contributed $725 to George Bush in 2004 and $776 to the RNC in 2004.

At the time of these contributions, Marielle Kronberg insisted on retaining her status as a member of the national committee of the National Caucus of Labor Committees. At the time of these contributions, Ken Kronberg, with other members of the LaRouche movement, was engaged in an all-out war to prevent the re-election of Bush-Cheney and the clearly manifested fascism which they represent. Does anything more need be said in the matter of Ken's suicide?

This appeared in the Sunday briefing for ALL members to read, including the widow and by default, the surviving son.

How sick can this cult be? Well, I for one thought that what was done to the elderly and some of our contacts with early versions of Alzheimer's and dementia was below what was done to members. Decades after I left we have Duggan and his family. Now we have this for us to internalize.

"sancho," Monday, August 20, 2007 - 7:11 am:

After reading the above, any LaRouche follower with a scrap of human decency will leave NOW.

II. LaRouche has blamed a variety of alleged villains--everyone but himself--for driving Kronberg to suicide

"eaglebeak," Monday, August 20, 2007 - 11:04 am:

Okay, folks.

On August 15, in commenting on the bizarre internal memo in that day's briefing blaming Linda de Hoyos and Uwe Friesecke for Kronberg's death, I wrote the following:

So I wonder: How long before the memo-writers start blaming the people who worked most closely with Kronberg at the companies? Or Kronberg's family?

Now we know the answer--it was four days before "the memo-writers" (LaRouche, channeled through whoever was lucky enough to be the receptacle) started blaming Kronberg's family--his widow.

I will be doing detailed posts on this memo in relation to previous memos--including some surprises--but let's quickly review the people LaRouche has blamed for Kronberg's death since April 11:

1. Kronberg himself (early memos)

2. The Baby Boomer fundraisers (who didn't make enough money to pay PMR)

3. PMR's (that is, Kronberg's) supposed repudiation of LaRouche's financial analysis in favor of a "get rich quick" approach--which LaRouche wants you to believe characterized Kronberg's behavior....

4. Linda de Hoyos, Uwe Friesecke, and Fernando Quijano

5. Linda de Hoyos, Uwe Friesecke, and their supposed years-long personal operations against Kronberg

And now--

6. Molly Kronberg, the widow.

III. LaRouche always blames the woman...

"eaglebeak," August 20, 2007 - 11:14 am:

LaRouche's decision to blame Molly Kronberg for Ken Kronberg's suicide is in keeping with the misogyny that afflicts him.

It's always the woman. When Gerry Ford wouldn't fight vote fraud, it was Betty. When Ronald Reagan didn't do this or that, it was Nancy. When Bill Clinton did whatever, it was Hillary--LaRouche was fixated on her "fat ankles," too.

In terms of the Bush-Cheney Presidency? It's not Bush, it's Cheney--but it's not really Cheney, it's Lynne Cheney.

And of course, in LaRouche Land it was Erica Duggan who was responsible for Jeremiah Duggan's death.

IV. The attack on Molly Kronberg is designed to "shut everyone up"

"eaglebeak," Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 6:23 am:

As the Skull/Bones blog points out, the key sentence in [the Molly-Kronberg-is-an-evil-Republican memo] is the ungrammatical, but memorable, last sentence: "Does anything more need be said in the matter of Ken's suicide?"

It is clearly the devout hope and wish of LaRouche and whichever member of his tiny but hyperactive legal department wrote this, that this memo will SHUT EVERYONE UP. Talk, gossip, anxiety, unease, are swirling around in the organization, no doubt, and this is supposed to be THE LAST WORD.

Like the memos which preceded it (the "Simple Facts" memo of July 31, the "Linda and Uwe Did It" memo of Aug. 15, the elegantly titled "MotherF---ers' Fears" written by LHL himself for the July 1 briefing, and other memos and more internal communications soon to appear here), this is strictly for internal consumption.

Obviously so--even more than its predecessors, it's too idiotic, and leans too heavily on LaRouche's special ideology, to work anywhere except in the LaRoucheland Bubble. In the real world it's a hair-raiser.

So the message of the memo, exclusively for LaRouchies, is: Shut Up Already.

Of course, in any normal organization, if people wanted to discuss the suicide of a colleague of 36 years, it probably wouldn't be called "gossip." But in LaRouche's world, anything that shows him to disadvantage, or raises or might raise an awkward question, is "gossip."

V. Transcript of 2005 conference call documents LaRouche's scapegoating of Ken Kronberg

"eaglebeak," Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - several successive postings beginning 6:43 am:

Let's look at what a valued, beloved associate Ken Kronberg was to Lyndon LaRouche before his death, and even before the suicide briefing of April 11.

The following is excerpted from a conference call LaRouche held with the National Committee members of the Labor Committee on Nov. 21, 2005. It was transcribed for the morning briefing, so the remarks LaRouche made here were known to all the members. Please note, as the full text will show you if you look up, LYMers and LCers, that Ken Kronberg was present on this conference call, but dared not say a word about what LaRouche said about him.

The conference call was titled: "I DON'T ALLOW VETO POWERS OVER ME: I'M OUT TO WIN THIS FOR HUMANITY." I think we can all guess who the "I" was.

Here is the introductory paragraph to the transcript:

The following is the full transcript of an NC conference call with Lyndon LaRouche held yesterday, which launched a renewed assault on the problems we must solve to achieve victory in this period. It is a discussion which the NEC thought should be shared with the membership as a whole.

Here is the relevant part of LaRouche's opening remarks.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, we're coming into a very interesting period. It's Thanksgiving. The turkey is running around town, in very short visits and saying "gobble, gobble, gobble!" It's like the thing, today.

I don't know if Cheney's wife's going to take him back, or not. But in any case, the situation is, we are now--, shall we say, I don't think that most of our people really know where they are, in the universe at this time. You get that, particularly from our phone team members in Baltimore, in New Jersey, especially in California, where you've really got the pits, the furthest from reality! Chicago. Because there, in the Baby-Boomer generation there really is not an understanding of reality.

What happened of course, is that, in the course of the '90s, there was a certain amount of mismanagement by Fernando, {and} others, who restructured the organization in a way which eliminated the field, in the sense. That is, it eliminated our face-to-face contact with the human population, and restricted the outreach to a select list of phone screened people, a phone bank. Now a phone bank is not human. And particularly as the use of phone banks becomes more and more and more common, when you're calling a number, you're calling the same number that's being besieged by perhaps 50 to 100 different other calls, which are doing funny kinds of solicitation. And therefore, by coming in that way, you run into the worst side of the U.S. population, the side that's reacting to that, and you are somehow placed in that, and that really is a terrible place to be. Now, in the course of the 1980s and early 1990s, we had supporters who were members of my generation, leading toward the older side of my generation. And these people died out, or became infirm. And often people over 70-75, a significant percentile of them in our population becomes infirm. And therefore, by relying on that part of the population for our support, of people who had known us back in '80s and so forth, what actually happened was that the sales force in various parts of the organization died. It died--well, in Los Angeles, it died, of course from Khushro diseases. It died in Jersey, for similar reasons. It died in Baltimore--it became senile in a sense, politically senile. And similarly....

So, there was no outreach. As a matter of fact, in 1994, in April of 1994, there was an hysterical reaction, both in the United States from Leesburg, and in Europe--absolutely hysterical! Screaming, yelling, raging, against my insistence that we get back with real outreach by going out of the offices, and going out and shake hands, and talk to real people on the streets, in a normal situation. So, that happened.

And you should see the scene [This is precisely the scene described in Tony Papert's morning briefing lead of April 11, 2007--obviously faithfully written down from LaRouche's rant of the night of April 10,2007, recalling this same scene--ed.]: Remember, in April 1994, right here at the residence [Residence? Residence? Who is Lyn--the Pope? Note that Papert wrote in the April 11 briefing "in this very room" or some such formulation], we had all these people here. And I gave a presentation on outreach. The faces grew gray, and purple, depending on which type--some got gray, some got purple, some got red. When they went out of the meeting, they were out SCREAMING! All of them--different issues--but, screaming. And they wouldn't do it, they wouldn't do outreach....

They're so conditioned, they're like Struldbruggs: They're so conditioned to a certain habit. And we would have people who would even do stupid things, rather than simply doing a simple thing, of calling somebody. Rather than call somebody they're supposed to call, on a follow-up, they'll go on the phone for half an hour, or an hour, to gobble up the time, to make sure they won't have any time left to talk to these stra-a-a-ngers....

So, actually, many of you--not you fine ladies and gentlemen--but many of you, similars, are clinically insane.

Now, this insanity also took another form. About this time, we'd gone into a period, where after 1990, 1992, sections of the world population of your age, that is, the Baby-Boomer age, went into a new phase of insanity, which is called "the end of history." History is over, you were past the age--that is, your generation--in which you were looking for promotions. You weren't looking for promotion to stepping up to the head of the corporation or something like that. You had passed promotion-eligible age. You were still adults, you were still adults out in the street, turned loose, but you had no more promotions--there was no future for you, that is, no upgrade. You were stuck where you were. And it was like being at the end of the trolley line, and living out at the end of the trolley line service, when the service was cut down; and you're living in someplace that can't get repaired, because there's no place to get in, the trolley isn't reliable any more.

[Okay, here comes the money shot. Wait for it.--ed.]

And along came a guy who said, "Well, Lyn is wrong. He says, there are crashes. Well, I've seen some crashes around, but I don't believe it. Yeah, we had a crash--but I don't believe it. I think Lyn's wrong. Maybe there'll be more crashes--but he's still wrong. They may have happened, but they never happened. Not as far as I'm concerned. Because I know, because somebody told me, and they told me at our print shop, they told me at Winstar, they told me at other places: We had a miracle in this country! It's call the IT, or Y2K Revolution. And there's money out there--LOTS OF MONEY! But you have to know how to get it."

And so, we had a scam at PMR, and they almost bankrupted us, and nearly bankrupted themselves with this crazy scam, believing that they were going to get this great contract, and they had no contract. But they went deeply into debt, and they dragged us into debt, pursuing a •••••-willow, that didn't exist.

And Winstar--the same thing. And back as late as 1999 and 2000, people were saying, around us, were saying, "Lyn is wrong. Where's the crash?" And you look at the figures, the physical figures of crashes around the country, and every time I've predicted a crash, or forecast one, it's happened! But they keep saying I'm wrong, there's no crash. Why? Because they wish to believe, there's not a problem: "The money is out there! You just have to know how to find it." And so, what they do, is they say, "We are not going to change. We are going to do, what we have always done. We know, the money is out there. And we'll get it our way! It will come to us--leave us alone, it will come to us. "Lyn is wrong!"

Okay--so Lyndon LaRouche accuses National Committee member Ken Kronberg--who is PMR, in everyone's eyes--not of bad judgment or misjudgment, but of a scam that almost destroyed the organization.

(It can be explained at a future point what LaRouche was talking about, but it was the farthest thing from a scam imaginable. Naturally.)

Clear, isn't it? Ken Kronberg gets on the NC conference call that day and hears himself described as a scam artist who almost destroyed the organization, as a sleazy wheeler-dealer out to make "lots of money" [that certainly worked out well for Kronberg, didn't it? He left no estate at all except a 1997 Toyota and bankrupt PMR/WorldComp], as a low-life hustler.

Not one of the other NCs says a word. Kronberg doesn't say a word. And the NEC decides that the whole membership should read the transcript of the conference call.

And that, gentle reader, is absolutely typical of the kind of abuse Lyndon LaRouche was heaping on Kenneth Kronberg for years.

The LaRouche entities couldn't pay their debts to PMR and WorldComp; the passionate belief in a moratorium on all LaRouche-related debts was driving the companies into bankruptcy and Kronberg into despair.

Kronberg was at this very time not paying withholding taxes, making himself personally and criminally liable, in order to keep the "print shop" going--in order to keep printing The New Federalist and EIR and 21st Century Science and Technology and Fidelio and books and pamphlets and leaflets and the Spanish publications--he was under unbearable financial, legal, and psychological pressure.

And this is how much LaRouche valued his longtime follower and supporter and NC member and colleague.

So, dear reader--use a grain of salt in evaluating LaRouche's utterances and the utterances of his sidekicks today about their respect and love for Kronberg, and their comments about Kronberg's suicide.

VI. LaRouche created a special committee to oversee the finances of PMR

"eaglebeak," Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 8:07 am (rev. 8:12 pm):

A couple of helpful additions to the material I posted above on LaRouche accusing Kronberg of running a scam, etc.

1. At the time that Kronberg was not paying withholding taxes, the entire NEC was informed of this fact: Jeff, Tony, Nancy, Ed (at the time), Will, Gerry, Dennis.

As a matter of fact, throughout 2005 there existed a "special committee" of NEC members created by LaRouche to oversee finances--four people instead of two. So, of seven NEC members, four were supposed to be intimately involved in finances and especially PMR and WorldComp finances.

The tax code includes a provision that anyone who has the authority to sign returns or access the company's accounts is potentially liable for 100% of any withheld income and social security tax (i.e. "Trust Fund") that is not paid over to the government. That means they are personally liable for paying over the unpaid withheld monies. Usually it just attaches to officers of the corporation, but anyone who has the requisite authority to sign returns or direct the disbursement of dollars is, under the law, potentially at risk if the taxes are unpaid.

2. According to a source whom I cannot reveal, at least not yet, in 2004 LaRouche's "investigators" already knew all about Molly Kronberg's giving money to Bush. They picked it up from a post on FactNet. (If you have the time, you can go back and search for it, although Molly was not identified by name there, but merely as "your editor" or something like that--at the time she was the editor of the now-defunct New Federalist, although interestingly, she would not put her name on the masthead.)

So the Aug. 19 memo about this contribution is not being entirely honest with you, kids. The Kronberg donations were no news to anyone who knew anything in the org.

Certainly not enough of a reason to jump off a 35-foot overpass in 2007.

VII. "We are dealing with a pathological liar"

"larouchetruth," Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 11:25 pm:

There is madness in LaRouche's method. "And whom the Gods would destroy, they first..." do what, again? How does that go? I guess we'll see if his latest briefing, blaming Kronberg's widow for his death because, three years ago, she financially supported the party of Satan's children, will be the final straw.

[Those of you] still defending LaRouche: we are dealing with a pathological liar. Leaving aside the internal idiocy of the latest charge, not to mention its hideous immorality--attacking the widow for causing her husband's suicide because, what, she disagreed over politics! As if anyone commits suicide for such reasons--please note that a) this suddenly discovered "explanation" for the suicide, proposed here as all one needs to know to explain it ("Does anything more need be said in the matter of Ken's suicide?"), flies in the face of, and totally contradicts, everything that LaRouche has said on this topic since April 11 (blaming the Boomer members, Uwe F., Linda dH, Fernando Q, et al., but never Molly), and b) LaRouche clearly has no idea that he is contradicting himself, or that by suddenly saying this new thing, that others may note that he is clearly lying--either he was lying before, or he is lying now, if not in both instances--but no way can he be telling the truth at all times.

Doesn't this matter to you? The only way anyone, even the most loyal member (excepting those that actually know the score, like Steinberg, and are staying around for totally cynical reasons), can possibly justify staying with LaRouche is that LaRouche is always right about what he says, meaning, he tells the truth. Thus, when in the course of a few weeks, LaRouche completely contradicts himself as he has here, if you can't accept that he has told a lie either up until now, or is telling one now, you are really far gone down the rabbit hole. And if you do recognize that he is lying, then you have to grapple with the fact that it is clearly a pathological lie.

What is a pathological lie? I found the following from a scholarly paper on the subject that says a lot of it:

The pathological lie is active in character, a whole sequence of experiences is fabricated and the products of fancy brought forward with a certainty that is astonishing. The possibility that the untruth may be at any minute demolished does not abash the liar in the least. Remonstrances against the lies make no impression. On closer inspection we find that the liar is no longer free, he has ceased to be master of his own lies, the lie has won power over him, it has the worth of a real experience. In the final stage of the evolution of the pathological lie, it cannot be differentiated from delusion.

And:

Then follows a closer analysis of the qualities possessed by pathological liars: (a) Their range of ideas is wide. (b) Their range of interests is wider than would be expected from their grade of education. (c) Their perceptions are better than the average. (d) They are nimble witted. Their oral and written style is above normal in fluency. (e) They exhibit faultiness in the development of conceptions and judgments. Their judgment is sharp and clear only as far as their own person does not come into consideration. It is the lack of any self criticism combined with an abnormal egocentric trend of thought that biases their judgments concerning themselves.

Does that fit LaRouche to a tee, or what? The pathological liar doesn't know he is lying when he says it. Whatever he says at the time, he believes it is true, and simply does not realize that he is contradicting previous lies, and makes no effort to make them consistent or coherent. And yet he can be abnormally convincing when he speaks, abnormally fluent both verbally and in writing. Hmmm.

VIII. Molly Kronberg's donations to the Republicans: The silly rationalization that is supposed to make LC members' guilt go away

Let me direct everyone's attention to recent posts on Dennis King's website, particularly at https://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/kronberg7.htm.

What's new here is that King has posted, not just the Morning Briefing/Operations Bulletin Memo about how Molly Kronberg drove Ken Kronberg to suicide by giving money to George W. Bush, but the memo written the day before by LaRouche himself to the NEC and NC, demanding to know why this information had not yet appeared in the briefing.

So we have an interesting chronology of events: Day 1 (Saturday morning, 8/18), LaRouche writes a crabby memo to the NCs asking why, even though "it had been agreed" that the memo attacking Molly Kronberg would appear in the Saturday a.m. Operations Bulletin, it had not.

Hmmm--did someone think that was a stupid thing to do, and try to hold back on it? Well, no matter what they thought, it surely was stupid.

Day 2 (Sunday Morning Briefing 8/19): The "need more be said" memo on Marielle Kronberg and her donations appears as the lead of the Ops Bulletin.

But as to LaRouche's "thoughts" as reflected in his own memo: As King points out, the burden of LaRouche's memo is that no guilt attaches to anyone in the Labor Committee for Ken Kronberg's April 2007 suicide, because Molly Kronberg gave money to the Bush campaign in 2004.

So relax, [Tony Papert]--no need to feel guilty for writing that obscene morning briefing of April 11....Even if former members do yell things at you on the street.

Relax, [Nancy Spannaus]--no reason to have any lingering regrets....Jeff [Steinberg] and Dennis [Small] and all the rest--no worries. There's nothing different you could have done, eh?

And you others, lower down, who may feel guilty for this or that--don't give it a second thought.

After all, as one NEC member said in the days after April 11, "We're in a war." (Translation--in a war people die. So Kronberg died. So what?)

In truth, the Kronberg case, like the Pat Tillman case, is one of friendly fire, followed by a series of conflicting attempts at coverup--a phenomenon so familiar from the devour-one's-children aspects of the LaRouche trials of the late '80s and early '90s.

Another common thread between the late 1980s and the present is LaRouche's insistence that "No one in the organization ever did anything wrong." Period.

This didn't work well during the trials, either. [It's] all a part of what someone once called "LaRouche's strategy of flamboyant doom."

Seriously, folks on the "inside"--just because LaRouche intends to go down in flames, is that any reason for you to get crisped?

IX. "Someone or some ones feel guilty" in spite of LaRouche's latest trick

"eaglebeak," Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 11:56 am:

Oh--one more thing about the LaRouche memo to the NCs that Dennis King posted.

The following sentence appears in the memo:

I, personally, am well aware of certain crucial other facts, bearing on the same matter, which, taken together would tend to console those who have worked so hard, against such frustration, for the really important issues of life, that they deserve access to knowledge of who is involved in cheating them of the facts which assure them that it is not their fault if some things for which they have worked so hard, and sacrificed so much, did not produce the results they had the right to achieve.

Two things:

1. The formulation about knowing certain special facts is one that LaRouche frequently uses when in a state of extreme paranoia. Compare his memo to the NCs in the days right after Kronberg's death. (The facts, of course, will be made up later.)

2. The sentence, amidst its convolutions, seems to concede that maybe everything hasn't worked out right in the efforts of the ICLC. Maybe the people who worked so hard and sacrificed so much deserve to be told why their efforts failed.

And here, of course, is the absurdity: Their efforts failed because Molly Kronberg gave $$ to George Bush and therefore three years later Ken Kronberg killed himself?

Well, when it came to working so hard and sacrificing so much, Ken Kronberg was in a class by himself. So what caused the failure? His suicide? Molly Kronberg's donations? Her donations and then his suicide?

As always, LaRouche's thought and writing is a model of incoherence and a mass of lies, subterfuge, and un-reason.

But two things shine through the spatter:

Someone or some ones feel guilty.

LaRouche is conceding some degree of failure.