NCLC Internal Discussion Document

Paul Teitelbaum
February 1, 1981

Throughout the recent "discussion," making reference to those few courageous and dignified statements made by individuals unable to swallow the excrement dished out for them and greedily devoured by the overwhelming majority of the rest of the organization, the letter of resignation submitted by Eric Nelson deserves particular attention. The reason for this is that Eric correctly locates the most significant problem in a way which has not otherwise been explicitly stated.

Specifically, Eric does not address himself to LaRouche. The question he asks is whether the NEC, and, by extension, the membership at large, you, would "find the courage to deal with the LaRouche problem." That's the right question.

Let's state some facts. Most of us joined the organization for good reasons. Long before we enshrined the word "reason" as a jargon term with a capital "R", we understood the purpose of the organization as being the means to allow for the existence of a human race which would deliberately and deliberatively determine its own destiny based on the scientific understanding of its own self interest. And that this conception included the highest notions of art, integrity, and intellectual achievement of which men and women are capable. And most of us put our money where our mouth is. For the last six years, eight years, ten years, and so on.

During the course of putting our money where our mouth is, some of us learned that the test of adulthood, the test of personal strength, is the ability to deal with the painful truth, the ability to find that part of you which forces you to do what you should do, as opposed to what you want to do. We've frequently heard, and spoken, the word "ruthlessness." Right now, Lyn is not playing with a full deck. It's really very obvious. Can you face it?

Back when this thing started, how many of you heard David Goldman accuse Gus of being an embezzler during a National Office briefing? Two weeks or so later, how many of you heard Lyn say that, not only was it untrue that Gus was an embezzler, but furthermore, Goldman could not have said it, and anyone who claimed that the statement had been made was a liar! When Mary said that she was there when Goldman made that particular statement and had confidence in the ability of her ears to hear and her mind to remember, Lyn switched gears, changed the subject, and told us that money diverted into Computron was not really the issue, that Gus had single-handedly destroyed the entire national organization, that Andy could own five percent of a computer selling for $14,000 and make $7,000 per unit, that Lyn invented the software business in general and on-line validation in particular, and much more. How many times did the same thing happen during the course of this one meeting? Do you think that Goldman developed the "embezzler" formulation himself? Where the hell do you think he got it?

Then there's the famous one and one half million Jews. Read the goddamned article. New Solidarity, August 22, 1978; I'll be glad to furnish copies. There's nothing in there about Schacht or Speer or the useless eaters policy versus another policy. It simply, baldly, states that the Nazis only killed one and a half million Jews. Furthermore, you, as a loyal member, are ordered to consider me, and treat me, as a conscious agent of Roy Cohn merely for pointing this out.[FN 1] Doesn't that bother you? It's not such a big deal for a person to retract an irresponsible statement. Consider the enormity of Lyn being unable to do even this.

This past week saw the issuance of Andy's and Lyn's joint statement. Lyn tells us that we are not to apply any type of perjorative interpretation into his statements. Isn't that a little too much? But I've actually seen people say to my face that "thief doesn't really mean thief, liar really doesn't mean liar." Nor are the phrases "immoral chiseller" and "fast talking two-bit salesman" perjorative. How can any of you repeat this sort of double talk without feeling very sick?

And there's so much more. As you well know. When has the enemy ever been handed so many weapons to use against us as he has through Lyn's memos over the last two months? Massive divergence of funds from the campaign into a private business? Among other things. Isn't that just a little more illegal than any number of scandals that have destroyed political careers and movements in recent memory? If it were true, and it's not, how much would the enemy pay to be able to prove it? Lyn has been telling us for years about how much money the enemy has invested to that end. Now he seems to be determined to provide them with a return on their investment. This is sheer insanity.

I've talked to several people who've said that the question of particular facts and so on and so forth is not the question. The question, they say, must be posed politically. If there was a consistent pattern of mismanagement and bad decisions which reflected a systematic flaw in the thinking of the decision makers, then this must be rooted out.

Well, that's fine. I believe that serious mistakes have been made and that mismanagement has occurred. But the above cited people are wrong. The lies are the point. The character assassinations are the point. And most importantly, your hysterical refusal to see what the evidence adds up to is the point. How will you act if someone puts a gun to your head and demands that you join the pogrom? Do you think that you will have integrity when you can't find your courage now? You laugh at Nick's description of the Greek peasant with the high IQ. Will you behave like the peasant's peasant father who was not a member of any humanist organization but took a gun and fled to the mountains? Will you act like the woman who ran dynamite to the resistance, or will you act like the man who accuses that same woman of being an agent of the KGB while he rewrites his autobiography to hide the fact that he was in a Conscientious Objector Camp while she was fighting the Nazis?

Look at your leaders. What a disgusting spectacle. Nick. Disgusting. Nancy, not surprising to me, but still disgusting. Uwe, watching Bruno burn while he kisses the pope's ring--if we compare Gus' mother with Galileo on a moral scale, where do we put Uwe? One must point out that Galileo, at least, was in peril of his life. Paul Goldstein, Jeff and Michele Steinberg, people who maintain their silence while Gus is accused of stripping Lyn's security and failing to counterpunch against Roy Cohn, what a bunch of swine. And the rest. At the same time, since we are all entitled to play by the same rules, let me take the opportunity to assure you that the above statements are for informational purposes only and are not to be misinterpreted as being perjorative against individuals.

Last Saturday, someone who should know better told me that he knew Gus was insane because Gus made a statement to the effect that the organization was, at this moment, fascist. He went on to say that Gus was not, in fact, insane at the point that Lyn insistently and repeatedly denounced Gus as such to the membership, and that it was Lyn's very activity which drove Gus insane! The astonishing conclusion which he reached from this is that, when considering Gus, a particular statement reported to him by a third party was sufficient for him to conclude that Gus had gone over the deep end. When considering Lyn, who has just been charged with falsely accusing his closest collaborator of ten years of insanity and thereby causing this to occur, one discards all such vulgar predicates. One defends Lyn's most recent statements with no reference to the way in which these statements contradict Lyn's previous statements. One's duty is to ignore all of the evidence which points to Lyn's unbalanced state of mind, despite the fact that many, many people know that the evidence I've alluded to is merely the tip of the iceberg.

One last comment. Some time ago, Lyn returned from an extended stay in Europe and gave a public presentation in New York. Some of our German members were present. At the end of the speech, the claque initiated the chant of "Lah' Rouche, Lah' Rouche, Lah' Rouche, Lah' Rouche..." My reaction at this and all subsequent occasions is difficult to describe. Suffice it to say that one's hair really does stand up on one's neck. We're all guilty of a disservice to the human race, and to Lyn in particular, for playing "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" with this. We all bear responsibility for Lyn's slide into megalomania.

In summation: I demand that Lyndon LaRouche be suspended from all policy and decision making functions in the organization, for his own good and for the good of the human race. I demand that our otherwise gifted people find the vertebrae that they have misplaced. I realize too well that the likely fate of this document is to be confiscated by our zealous Security officers while the few copies that slip through provoke some contemptuous giggling in the National Office, as was the fate of the eloquent statement written by Gus. If you act in this fashion, if you betray this trust, then the characterization of the organization as fascist will become irrevocable, with all that you know that this implies.

Postscript--February 11, 1981

After having decided to postpone publication of this document, today's Internal Memo calling for the institution of the New Inquisition has made the question of whether or not I choose to resign a moot point. It should be obvious that this hysterical piece, which follows logically from the earlier pieces which variously insult and threaten the field organization, reflects Lyn's realization that many members are not swallowing these enormities but are instead silently and sullenly going through their day to day motions.

Three evenings ago I had a discussion with a long-time friend and colleague of mine who, like many of you, has kept his mouth shut during the current period. This person told me, as I had so often in the past told myself, that the briefing and Lyn's contributions in particular are often looney, and that it is necessary to tune out the discordant notes in order to appreciate the harmony of the music. This same person had attended a public briefing given by the NEC the night before during which Uwe Friesecke had told us the one about "What's the difference between Kostas and Judas? Judas didn't spend the money." When asked how he felt about this the fellow admitted that "it turned my stomach." So why didn't he say anything? Why didn't he protest? Well, "the aversive climate in the organization makes it impossible for me to speak up." Untrue, of course. I and others have not found it "impossible" to repeatedly publicly and privately confront Lyn on his lies. What this person really meant to say is, "the aversive climate in the organization makes it impossible for me to speak up without sacrificing the warm feelings and sentimental regards of the frothing dogs and cringing jackals who presently comprise the leadership of the ICLC." When asked what he thought might happen if a hundred people like him suddenly found the courage to speak up, he replied that this would destroy the organization! Isn't that unbelievable? The organization can only survive based on a conspiracy to maintain immoral silence by all members who have even a moderate sense of decency? And by default, to leave everything we have fought for in the hands of the variously wild-eyed, wide-eyed, and shifty-eyed people who have committed themselves to the cult of LaRouche's infallibility? For those of you whose "stomachs turn," you'd better realize that a massive public outpouring of protests and/or resignations is the last chance that you'll have to even try to deliver a shock to bring the organization to its senses.

I hereby formally resign my membership in the National Caucus of Labor Committees and disassociate myself from all organizations under the control or influence of Lyndon LaRouche.


[1] The same accusation--of being an agent of the infamous Roy Cohn--was made incessantly during that period against me and Our Town publisher Ed Kayatt.--DK