[Note: These postings by the indomitable Eaglebeak include a number of sarcastic asides that will only be fully understood by those who are former members of the LaRouche movement or have closely tracked its activities. For the most part, I have not attempted to provide explanatory notes on these comments. I urge the general reader to concentrate on the documentation here of LaRouche's ongoing attempt to reframe his followers' understanding of the suicide of Ken Kronberg last April and thus to maintain organizational discipline and morale. From my reading of the documents and of Eaglebeak's interpretation, I think three basic conclusions can be drawn:
The LaRouche movement has begun to acknowledge "induced suicide" as a very real phenomenon, although they blame it on outside forces to divert attention from what happened to Kenneth Kronberg last April.
LaRouche is using the example of a 2006 teen suicide in Missouri (triggered by an online hoax) to scare naive members of his youth movement away from the internet, where they might otherwise learn the truth about his organization's history--and about his own responsibility for Kronberg's death.
LaRouche has a longstanding fascination with the writings on suicide of sociologist Emile Durkheim and is now citing Durkheim to imply that any past or future suicides inside the LaRouche organization have been or will be the normal and predictable, if unfortunate, result of the inability of individuals to adjust to necessary changes in the organization (increased workloads, tighter discipline, the replacement of older members by LaRouche Youth Movement members in positions of authority, etc.). In other words, LaRouche is attempting to reframe the Kronberg suicide as an impersonal result of sociological dynamics--thus absolving himself, his personal Martin Bormann (Tony Papert, who signed the infamous suicide memo issued hours before Kronberg's death) and the NCLC's National Executive Committee of any moral responsibility in the eyes of the NCLC membership and the general public.--DK]
EAGLEBEAK: Lyndon LaRouche and his LaRouche Jugend Bewegung [LaRouche Youth Movement--a play on the Hitler Jugend Bewegung, the Hitler Youth] are now admitting that suicide can be induced by vicious words. (When the vicious words are coupled with vicious actions, it would seem to be a slam dunk, as Jeff's favorite ex-CIA chief might say.)
It's part of Lyn/LYM's My Face/Spacebook [ha, ha: get it?--EB] campaign, to be encapsulated in the soon-to-be-published LYM-authored pamphlet, Is the Devil in Your Laptop?
(No, but Satan's in My Schoolyard.) [This is an allusion to the title of a LaRouche pamphlet circa 1989.--DK]
1. In the Nov. 18 briefing lead, LYM member Aaron reports:
Well, the incident that occurred was the death of a 13 year old girl last year, but the incident itself is not the problem. [Unless you're the girl or her family.--EB] The problem is the tragedy that Lyn was talking about in the recent papers, and picked up with this recent thing where he's talking about Paulson [U.S. Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson] as a product also of this problem that exists, tragically, in the United States, and worldwide.
And this girl, it's a very confusing report [Not really--see the AP story which appeared in The Washington Post this past week, datelined Dardenne Prairie, Mo.--EB], but the girl herself committed suicide because a fake personality was created by another family, who was [sic] her friend's family. Her friend's mother and father created a fake personality, through MySpace, and there was a full interaction through the existence of MySpace, which this girl was interacting with. And therefore drove her to commit suicide, because of this problem.
She was a rejected kind of person, because she was chubby, and stuff of that nature, and she gets into a situation where she thinks she has this friend, this fake friend on MySpace, which then she gets rejected eventually by this fake friend. But not only is the fake friend involved, but you have multiple personalities around the fake friend act on the girl. And this is the kind of thing that's been occurring, most of the time on MySpace--and Facebook too. [See how if you avoid the Internet, your coherence of expression increases?--EB]
And it's not particularly, what I think the problem is not particularly the family that was involved, although they are part of this problem, but that as was reported by the Missouri paper, the St. Charles Journal, there's this mob mentality that's building up around these kinds of incidents, where people on this internet world--within MySpace and Facebook--see some reports about these kinds of incidents, and really react, and do the same kind of operation that occurred to the girl, to the family that were supposedly the main perpetrators of the fake personality.
So, you have a complete driven tragedy that's occurring in the United States, that is reflected not in the suicide itself, but in the mob reaction...So, there'll be more on this. We're putting reports together of other kinds of incidents, and of these characters, and it'll be in the pamphlet, which will soon be out.
2. From the Nov. 18 briefing, slug by "lym" on the same topic, with sizable contribution from LaRouche in the form of gibberish:
November 17, 2007 (LPAC)--LaRouchePAC has been sent multiple emails regarding Megan Meier, a 13 year old girl, from Dardenne Prairie, Mo., who committed suicide on Oct. 16, 2006, after being rejected by fake personalities on Murdoch's death chamber, MySpace. The tragic incident itself wasn't known by the internet mobs, until the Suburban Journal released a report by Steve Pokin, on Monday, November 12, 2007. Pokin's very objective report leaves the reader to judge the problem, but also lays blame for the suicide on the parents of a friend of Megan's.
To summarize Pokin's report: Megan Meier, who had social problems, was given access to MySpace by her parents, and through her image of herself, became friends with a 16 year old boy named Josh. Josh, who pretended to like her, was a fake personality created by the parents, not named in the report, of a friend of Megan's, who wanted to see what Megan was saying about their daughter. Megan had gotten into a fight with her friend and sought refuge in the fake personality Josh, on MySpace. A dialogue then occurred, between Josh, Megan and other MySpace personalities. During the dialogue, Megan called her mother, and told her, "They are posting bulletins about me....Megan Meier is a ****. Megan Meier is fat." These multiple attacks on Megan's self-esteem, caused her to commit suicide later that evening.
Pokin's report was later picked up by several other internet news wires, on November 16, 2007. One report from Tim Jones of the Chicago Tribune said, "'People are just totally shocked...They can't believe that an adult would have done this,' said Pam Fogarty, mayor of the town of 7,000 people.
"'The scary part is that when you look at the blogs and listen to the phone calls we're getting, it's very quickly becoming a mob mentality,' said Fogarty, who has arranged for additional police patrols in the neighborhood."
This crazy mob, generated by the reports, has the same tragic mentality as the MySpace dwellers who caused the suicide of the young girl. The question should be asked: Why is this countergang operation being organized, by a tragic incident, at this time? Also, do you think that this incident would have occurred if MySpace didn't exist? [Emphasis by EB.] Why do you think violence and death are permitted in Murdoch's World of MySpace? Do you think that Beastman Murdoch really cares what happens to the United States population?
It should be known that this isn't the only incident being used to create mobs within the United States population. Other incidents, like the death of the English girl, Meredith Kercher, in Italy, have been used to create mobs of crazed MySpace dwellers to yell and scream "Justice! We want justice!" But, if you study your history, you'd know that the British Empire, like the Spanish Inquisition, has always used these types of incidents to create the Jacobin mobs which become the murderers of Justice.[FN 1]
To quote Lyndon LaRouche from "The Mask of Nancy Pelosi: The Force of Tragedy":
"Contrary to induced popular belief [emphasis by DK], Classical tragedy since Aeschylus, has one clear, unchanging definition in the legacy of the best among the examples of leading poets, playwrights, and other relevant composers [??--DK], such as Aeschylus, Shakespeare, and Friedrich Schiller. Typically incompetent, current academic views on this subject, have been sometimes associated with the teaching of the subjects [sic] of Shakespeare by Romantics such as Coleridge and Bradley. Crude, but relevant, nonetheless, is the witless and vulgar practice of attaching the rubric "tragedy" to almost any misfortunate occurrence. Contrary to popular illiteracy of today, the civilized use of the term, tragedy, has a precise, very important, and scientifically rigorous meaning, especially for those in the terrible grip of the threat to today's presently real-life consequences. [Some day I'll tell you what it is.--EB] This notion of tragedy, is the subject of a strategic-intelligence assessment which must now be considered by any seriously competent viewer of the present U.S. situation.
"For purpose [sic] of this needed reflection, begin now with two excerpts from Act I, Scene 2 of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Shakespeare does come to the point quickly, in his fashion.
"First: Cassius to Brutus: (answering Brutus' question concerning the influence of Julius Caesar):
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus: and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs, and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
Men at some times are masters of their fates:
The Fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings....
"Second: Cassius: Did Cicero say anything?
Casca: Ay, he spoke Greek.
Cassius: To what effect?
Casca: Nay, an I tell you that, I'll ne'er look you i' the face again: but those that understood him smiled at one another, and shook their heads; but, for mine own part, it was Greek to me...."
3. LaRouche Memo of Nov. 21 on the above topic, castigating misuse of phrase "social phenomenon." (He may mean sociological phenomenon. Or not.):
From: PGM::IF_ 21-NOV-2007 10:08:28.99
Subj: LHL correction
FROM:LAR " Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. "
SUBJ: CORRECTION ON USE OF "SOCIAL PHENOMENON"
9:19 PM 11/21/2007 EDT
The events must not be SIMPLY identified as either a "social phenomenon," or as "not a social phenomenon." The issue is: "What kind of a social phenomenon?" Are we employing the term "social phenomenon" in the sense of a mechanical-statistical effect; or, are we referring to an explicitly "dynamic" process. Emile Durkheim's book "Suicide" emphasizes what is fairly, approximately regarded as a dynamic, rather than a mechanistic-statistic process.
...The normal political activist seeks to integrate society through dialogue; the pathological type, such as Myspace, Facebook, and computer killer games "desensitize" the victim's engagement with the parts of society with with [sic] he or she may disagree. E.g., "outreach" in the form of a dialogue aimed toward a broad common understanding, whereas the desocialized groups such as Myspace and Facebook, seek to destroy, rather than persuade. [Emphasis by EB.] The worst among the religious "fundamentalists" converge upon the sociology of both the Ku Klux Klan lynch [mob] and the killer-terrorist syndrome, albeit in different forms of expression.
In 1960, I wrote a critique of the relevant work of Emile Durkheim et al. [??] (a copy of which might turn up somewhere), which addresses Durkheim's thesis from my standpoint of Riemannian dynamics, tracing a case in European culture which can be precisely located in the relevant evidence from early lower Mesopotamia from about the 4th Century B.C. The Sumerian-Akkaddian, "bow tenure" models of organization which I examined from the vantage-point of my work in the field of Riemann dynamic models of physical-social organization and the influence of their specifically Semitic sequels, was my principal point of reference. [Memo to self: The 1975 first and only edition of Lyn's chef d'oeuvre, Dialectical Economics, does not mention Riemann once in the index, although 15 years had passed since he supposedly began writing from his "Riemannian" standpoint; but of course, Ken Kronberg prepared the index, so maybe he was already scamming LaRouche?--EB] I concluded, by the close of the 1950s, that the general use of the idea of "class" must be put aside, to focus on the more significant "sociological category," the socio-dynamic, physical-economic notion of caste.
4. More on suicide - from the Nov. 22 briefing (note the obsession with Durkheim):
Nov. 21, 2007 (LPAC)--Fragmentary reports emanating from European news sources covering the statistically-related events which have followed the school shooting in Finland, clearly avoid the most important issue. So far, what every other leading report on the Finland shooting and its allegedly related incidents fails to indicate, is the role of "dynamics." By this omission, the readers of these reports are left to connect statistical discretes to form a meaningless picture, which corresponds in no way with the overview needed to actually address the issue. From the standpoint of "dynamics," we might return to these incidents with a competent treatment.....
Lyndon LaRouche has emphasized the dynamic approach taken by Emile Durkheim, in his [Durkheim's] book, Suicide....
Durkheim compared the number of total voluntary deaths (suicides) of a given society, to the population of every age and sex, and found that this ratio tends to remain constant for long periods. Furthermore, its variability was less than that of general mortality. This supported Durkheim's location of the cause of this particular kind of suicide in society, rather than in the individual [emphasis by EB]:
"It is not true, then [Durkheim writes], that human activity can be released from all restraint. Nothing in the world can enjoy such a privilege. All existence being a part of the universe is relative to the remainder....Man's characteristic privilege is that the bond he accepts is not physical but moral; that is, social. He is governed not by a material environment brutally imposed on him, but by a conscience superior to his own, the superiority of which he feels. Because the greater, better part of his existence transcends the body, he escapes the body's yoke, but is subject to that of society.
"But when society is disturbed by some painful crisis or by beneficent but abrupt transitions, it is momentarily incapable of exercising this influence; thence come the sudden rises in the curve of suicides which we have pointed out....
"In the case of economic disasters, indeed, something like a declassification occurs which suddenly casts certain individuals into a lower state than their previous one. Then they must reduce their requirements, restrain their needs, learn greater self-control. All the advantages of social influence are lost. So far as they are concerned, their moral education has to be recommenced. But society cannot adjust them instantaneously to this new life and teach them to practice the increased self-repression to which they are unaccustomed. So they are not adjusted to the condition forced on them, and its very prospect is intolerable; hence the suffering which detaches them from a reduced existence even before they have made trial of it.
"In the case of economic disasters, indeed, something like a declassification occurs which suddenly casts certain individuals into a lower state than their previous one. Then they must reduce their requirements, restrain their needs, learn greater self-control. All the advantages of social influence are lost. So far as they are concerned, their moral education has to be recommenced. But society cannot adjust them instantaneously to this new life and teach them to practice the increased self-repression to which they are unaccustomed. So they are not adjusted to the condition forced on them, and its very prospect is intolerable; hence the suffering which detaches them from a reduced existence even before they have made trial of it.[Emphasis by EB.]
[EB's Note: In other words, yes, the society, or the organization, or the cult, imposes the conditions which make life intolerable for the individual. Hmmm.] [For full text of "Overlooked After the Finland Shooting," click here.]
Comments on the above:
1. A short campaign of vicious verbal attacks apparently sufficed to drive Megan to suicide.
2. What would a 13-year campaign of vicious attacks, written and oral, against Ken Kronberg personally, and his wife, and PMR and its ICLC employees more broadly, coupled with a refusal over decades to pay gigantic organizational bills, to the point where Kronberg was unable to pay withholding taxes and keep the plant running--what might such a campaign do?
3. Forget LaRouche et al.'s various alibis, such as (not an exhaustive list):
a. Kronberg's "clinical depression" (Dr. Boyd and Dr. Rosinsky at the ready--apparently the good doctors have not heard of situational depression).
b. Kronberg's alleged numerous bad or legally problematic business decisions (fed through the organization as a rumor; problematic because there are slander issues involved).
c. Kronberg's wife's donations to the Republican Party in 2004--absurd to anyone who knew the couple, but Labor Committee members believe almost anything. Clearly.
4. Forget LaRouche's claim that induced suicide is a feature of the Internet, and would not have happened in Megan's case if not for the Internet. His very own Ken Kronberg case of induced suicide gives the lie to that.
5. LaRouche's obsession with Emile Durkheim is pretty suggestive too. And Durkheim seems to make it plain that the society, or the organization, creates the conditions of intolerable life in which suicide becomes the solution.
6. P.S. Did you catch that reference to "Semites" in Lyn's maunderings about his 1960 "Riemannian" whatsis? What a guy!
LaRouche and the Labor Committee have admitted that induced suicide is possible. QED.
Listen closely, yutes (and oldsters, although your fear of Dennis King may be too great to allow you to focus): King had a point with all those posts on induced suicide.
And Another Thing...
LaRouche has lately been declaring that Hamlet's father's ghost, the initiator of all the action in the play, is a Satanic force.
How odd. For years Lyn believed that the murder of the old king should be punished. Suddenly, the most vengeful man on the Eastern Seaboard is opposing revenge, even punishment for murder.
Makes you wonder, eh?
Then we have the confusion over Julius Caesar, what's at the beginning, and what's at the end. For you yutes who don't know what's at the end, here's a tip:
It's not portents and sheeted dead (portents are usually at the beginning of a play, Tony and Lyn), it's that chilling moment before the battle of Philippi when the ghost of the murdered Caesar shows up and tells his murderer, Brutus, that he came "To tell thee thou shalt see me at Philippi."
At Philippi, of course, Brutus meets his fate. Revenge, or justice? Either way, not surprising LaRouche and his amanuensis Tony are blocking on it.
So once again, the bitterest man you'll ever meet is shying away from thoughts of justice or revenge.
How can that be? Wasn't Lyn the guy who was always crowing about the Erinyes--the Furies--coming after Henry Kissinger or Felix Rohatyn or one of his other numerous Feinbilden?
Lastly, there's good old Helga. In a Nov. 17 speech to a LYM cadre school in Argentina, she said the following fascinating thing.
So, just to mention it, in Classical art, naturally, there is also sometimes ugliness discussed. For example, if you read the poem The Cranes of Ibykus, when the Erinyes are coming, they look like Furies with snakes around their heads, and so forth, it's also ugliness. [That may be because the Erinyes ARE the Furies, Helga.--EB] But ugliness is never a purpose for itself. In the case of this poem of The Cranes of Ibykus, Schiller uses the ugliness to bring about the feeling of eeriness, to have a metaphor for the presence of the deity, of the supernatural, for that which causes man to recognize that there is natural law, and it's not used as a purpose in itself. So, the ugly and the dreadful is never used for its own sake, but only to create a prescience of the supernatural in man.
What makes this so very interesting is all the years Lyn spent raving about the Erinyes and the cranes of Ibykus. I mean, for Pete's sake, they named their zillion-dollar spread Ibykus. And now, suddenly, he's not so keen.
I wonder whether the old boy is feeling haunted these days. Guilty? Nah! Couldn't be. And yet....
 The complaint about internet "mobs" clearly refers not only to the reaction to Megan Meier's death but also to the widespread condemnation of LaRouche's treatment of Ken Kronberg that has appeared on Wikipedia and on various web sites and blogs. To counter the possible effect of these criticisms on his own followers, LaRouche uses once again the cognitive reframings and Orwellian word games that are his signature technique. He compares his internet opponents to the Spanish Inquisition (which killed thousands of Jews), while suggesting that he himself--the person who in fact is morally responsible for the deaths of Kronberg and of another Jew, the brave young Jeremiah Duggan--is the great champion against Inquisition tactics (and by inference, against persecution of the Jews). This obfuscation echoes LaRouche's use of semantics-based reframings (backed up by fraudulent historical "research") in the late 1970s to invert his followers' view of reality so that Jewish bankers and the pro-Zionist majority among Jews came to be seen as the Jews-who-are-not-Jews (and as worse than the Nazis), the anti-Zionist LaRouche Jews came to be seen as the "real" Jews, and the Nazis came to be seen as allies in the struggle of the LaRouche movement (including its supposedly real "Philo" Jews) against the hundred-times-worse-than-Hitler global conspiracy of the Jews-who-are-not-Jews.--DK