Once again LaRouche trashes Kronberg's memory, demeans the widow, and pontificates about his own greatness...but a former follower dissects Lyn's nonsense point by point

LAROUCHE'S "RIEMANN" MEMO

"Take the case of Molly Kronberg....Her perfervid devotion to ways and things Brutish marked her as the wife of a loyal member who had gone over to...the enemy cause."

NCLC internal document leaked by insiders and posted by "xlcr4life" on FACT Net, Sept, 11, 2007

+---------------------------------------------------------------+

| |

| NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS BULLETIN |

| |

| MONDAY, SEPT 10, 2007 |

| |

+---------------------------------------------------------------+

TO:@DIS:NEC,WIE,HSE

FROM:LAR " Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. "

CC:HZL

SUBJ: FOR OUR CONSUMPTION

September 9, 2007 (2:10pm) ECT

For the Record:

DO YOU REMEMBER RIEMANN?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Recently, an associate has raised, repeatedly, the assertion that my current policies on the subjects of Marxian economy and Roosevelt have changed, that almost axiomatically, over the course of the recent three-and-a-half-decades. I have replied, each time, by pointing to evidence that that is not true. In fact, the truth is that the values of some among our associates have changed as the years have gone by; a shift from onward-looking combat for a cause, to a contemplative outlook, from us in combat for mankind, to adjusting to views which might be more acceptable to those who never made our commitment to humanity, those among extended family and kindred sorts of social connections. The principle expressed is that, brave soldiers are most likely to be found among younger adults under approximately thirty-five years of age.

To provide the message needed to quell the idle speculation about my supposed change of views on these matters, the following small piece is placed on our record.

My outlook has not changed in any essentials, on either Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or principles of economy, since the developments of the 1946-1953 interval. This point is shown most immediately, and clearly, by my adoption of the work of Bernard Riemann, in 1953, as an outgrowth of my Spring 1948 reflections on my January 1948 reading of Professor Norbert Weiner's Cybernetics. That view on the science of economy was consolidated by my successful long-range economic forecasting during the interval 1956-1960, a method rooted in the anti-Euclidean outlook on the method for physical science which I adopted early during my adolescence.

It is very much to the point, that I have never shared the empiricist's or so-called Anglo-Dutch Liberal's view, that "opinions about this or that" are matters to be treated as substitutes for principles. For me, as for all competent science, principles are either universal, or they are not principles, although knowledge of them is acquired through an historical process.

Take the case of Molly Kronberg. Some people were shocked by the evidence, from the public record, that she had gone over to the political enemy. Why? I was already aware of this by about 1990. If the evidence were overlooked, her perfervid devotion to ways and things Brutish marked her as the wife of a loyal member who had gone over to intellectual affiliation with the enemy cause. Every time I spoke unfavorably of our republic's principal long-term foe, the "Brutish Empire," Molly would slam her books on the floor and storm out; she had already gone over to the other side, and sooner or later she would choose a new destiny, as Linda de Hoyos, and Uwe Friesecke had done with the scheme he unleashed on the instant he knew I was being shipped to a prison from which he was confident I would not return alive.

Or take the case of those departed souls, such as the bunch who were not only taken in by the Winstar scam, an outright scam, in even its bare conception, from the outset, but adopted change in moral and practical expressions of a philosophical world-outlook contrary to the standpoint of my life's work in our association. They were typical of those who, out of cowardice, reacted to the developments of 1984-1989, by surrendering, emotionally and intellectually to the enemy, waving the "white flag of surrender" while shouting to the smiling adversary, "Please, don't shoot us; we and our families need that money!"

"Lyn is wrong about the economy," was the common expression of this fear-driven apostasy, The ranks of the "Gideon's Army" grew smaller in this way.

This problem, as a flight from sane economic outlook into middle-class Baby-Boomer-style fantasy-life, became clear to me in January 1996, at the first general meeting on behalf of my Presidential election. This sickened state of mind ran rampant through our association through the 2000 collapse of the Y2K bubble.

It was that state of mind among a significant number of those among and around us, which not only bankrupted PMR virtually by 2000, but had virtually bankrupted our association as a by-product of the loss of the subscription fulfilment (for New Federalist, EIR, and others) which had been our association's chief economic base of continued operations, and "fourth circle" base of organized political and related support.

Today, we are faced with the situation among us, that belief in Winstar, in the fantasies of PMR's management, and so on, are already gone or waning among those of us with even the shards of sanity, but the scars on the mind which formerly habituated illusions have produced, persist. During that period, when those and kindred, misleading fantasies were treated as "inside knowledge" of the gossip circuits, the outlooks of those victimized by these errant fads were habituated among some as "our traditions," even when those policies themselves were dead.

As relevant publications and policies of outreach, from the 1970s on attest, we were always premised on what came to be hated among what are now our former associates in the U.S.A. and Europe, whether the anglophile whores of "Uriah Heep" Friesecke's gang of habituated liars, the "right wingers" from the downward flow of the left bank of the Rhine, or Fearful Fernando's Fascist Fakers in the U.S.A.

All that is historical and otherwise fact, but the more interesting aspect of the matter is that which touches, here and there, on matters which have actual bearing, not on mere liberal doses of "our traditional" gossip, but matters bearing on points of actual pinciple [sic].

Karl Marx's Economics

Karl Marx had no serious presence in economics until he had arrived, as already a member of Lord Palmerston's Young Europe association, under the immediate supervision of that veteran British foreign-office agent Urquhart who was then serving, in his post at the British Library, as the general secretary for correspondence with branches of the International Young Europe association. Under Urquhart's eagle eye, Marx was steered through the standard hagiolatry of the former Foreign Office Secret Committee secretary Jeremy Bentham's Haileybury School. All during the time Marx was actually controlled by Bentham's trainee and successor, the Lord Palmerston whom Russia-hating Karl Marx denounced in an entire book which purported to expose Palmerston as a Russian spy.

It attests to British methods, still today, that Karl Marx's appointment to his position as Secretary of the "First International" was announced, at a London public meeting, by Palmerston's official head of the Young Europe association.

The point respecting Marxian economics which is of maximum relevance for us in this review, is that Marxian economics is a branch of British imperial economic dogma, and is premised entirely on the axiomatic assumptions of the Physiocrats, Mandeville, Adam Smith, Gianmaria Ortes, et al. The historical and otherwise practical significance of this fact for us today, is that with the exception of the interval 1933-1964, as extended to the onset of the Nixon Presidency, the international monetary-financial system as a whole, was an extension of the British empire-in-fact established with the February 1763 Peace of Paris, the founding of the empire, then under the East India Company, which conclusively superseded the Peace of Westphalia. That system, as it was crafted under Haileybury's influence, is the system which, with that noted exception has ruled and ruined the world at large over the entire span of that time, as expressed in the present plunge toward the establishment of a global new dark age, today.

We have ("we" as I typify "we") the best insight into this system of any known person, or persons living today. We also have a method of forecasting, developed uniquely by me, which is systemically rooted in the method which Bernard Riemann crafted on his principal predecessors, from Cusa and Kepler, through Liebniz, and Riemann. My method of forecasting is systemically dynamic, whereas all putative rivals, including my foolishly forecasting friends in Leesburg and elsewhere, rely upon statistical-forecasting methods derived from Descartes. Marx was a neo-Cartesian on this account.

Similarly, all of my views on human nature and society, including those akin to Vernadsky's, are premised on the Riemannian method which I adopted in 1953, as the appropriate point of reference for overturning the swinishness of Norbert Weiner and John v. Neumann.

Stay with principles, rather than gossip or "positions."

The mental map of the universe in which I live, once built, never changes in any essential feature of practice, until the person holding such a map is dead, in one sense or another. Most people in my time have not shown convincing evidence that they have such a coherent map, although they will, nonetheless, unwittingly, be possessed by one.

*********************************************

YES, I REMEMBER RIEMANN

Comments on Lyndon LaRouche's latest memo

"Here we have LaRouche blaming Kronberg for destroying the subscription base. Someone needs to tell LaRouche...that in normal business, the printer is not responsible to pay for the mailing, the customer is....LaRouche just can't cope with the idea of paying for services."

By "eaglebeak" (Sept. 12, 2007 postings on the FACT Net ex-LaRouche message board):

LAROUCHE: Recently, an associate has raised, repeatedly, the assertion that my current policies on the subjects of Marxian economy and Roosevelt have changed, that almost axiomatically, over the course of the recent three-and-a-half-decades.

EB: Don't you wonder who that associate is? It goes without saying that whoever it is, is right. No yute [LaRouche Youth Movement member] would know this, but any Baby Boomer [old-time LaRouche follower] who ever read "The Conceptual History of the Labor Committees," Dialectical Economics, "Philosophy of Socialist Education," or any one of a million other such productions, knows that the associate has it nailed on Marx, and any of us who in the "recent" 3.5 decades heard LaRouche denounce FDR as a Mussolini socialist knows that story too.

LAROUCHE: To provide the message needed to quell the idle speculation about my supposed change of views on these matters, the following small piece is placed on our record.

EB: Well, that should work. Whatever else it does, this small piece changes the subject by diverting all attention to the present mental state of LHL. Forget the recent 3.5 decades, folks: What's been going on in the recent 3.5 days?

LAROUCHE: My outlook has not changed in any essentials, on either Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or principles of economy, since the developments of the 1946-1953 interval.

EB: Except that I used to think FDR was a Mussolini-style fascist, a corporatist, but now I think he's me, and I'm he, and he's God.

LAROUCHE: Take the case of Molly Kronberg. Some people were shocked by the evidence, from the public record, that she had gone over to the political enemy. Why? I was already aware of this by about 1990.

EB: Hmmm. If LaRouche was aware of this by 1990, why was Kronberg still editing The New Federalist till it died in 2006, and why was she on the National Committee until the recent alpha access debacle? For all I know, maybe she is still on the National Committee....

Let's think about this: LaRouche threw Ed Spannaus off the NEC and NC in summer 2006 for writing a headline on a pamphlet that Ed didn't write--and despite everyone's protestations that Ed hadn't written it.

So why was Molly Kronberg on the NC all those years, if her "perfervid" devotion to the "Brutish" (see below) was known to LHL?

Here's what's interesting in the phrase "about 1990": the year of interest is actually 1989, and what happened that year--as LaRouche knows too well--is the New York trial, and what happened in that trial is that defendant Kronberg made a motion to sever her case from the other defendants on the grounds that she did not want LaRouche to testify for the defense, and LaRouche and his claque went crazy denouncing her as a traitor blah blah, and so 1989 was the year that you could say LaRouche and Kronberg had their definitive and mildly dramatic break.

LAROUCHE: If the evidence were overlooked, her perfervid devotion to ways and things Brutish marked her as the wife of a loyal member who had gone over to intellectual affiliation with the enemy cause.

EB: Loyal member? Loyal member???? Are we talking about Ken Kronberg here? The man who [according to other recent LaRouche memos] almost single-handedly ruined the organization by his "management fantasies," supposed refusals to believe LaRouche's forecasts, ill-advised "investment" decisions? Are we talking about the man who scammed the organization?? Are we talking about the man who ran the print shop that, according to the April 11 morning briefing, was "the worst"? Are we talking about the man who went to the Straussian hotbed of St. John's? That academic who didn't understand Shakespeare? Same guy??

LAROUCHE: Every time I spoke unfavorably of our republic's principal long-term foe, the "Brutish Empire," Molly would slam her books on the floor and storm out....

EB: Which books were those? Does anyone who knows Molly Kronberg think she would leave any books of hers behind "on the floor"? If you can remember a single occasion on which you saw Molly Kronberg slam her books on the floor and "storm out" of somewhere or other (where was that again?) when LaRouche spoke, please email me the details at the address I provide below.

LAROUCHE: ...As Linda de Hoyos, and Uwe Friesecke had done with the scheme he unleashed on the instant he knew I was being shipped to a prison from which he was confident I would not return alive.

EB: What scheme? "He was confident I would not return alive"--what a canard! Some of us who suspected LaRouche was not the most important man in the world were pretty sure he would be safe as houses in Federal prison, but Uwe wasn't one of those. Uwe was doing everything he could to preserve and protect all of LaRouche's effects, even those stupid cows [at LaRouche's country estate]....

LAROUCHE: Or take the case of those departed souls, such as the bunch who were not only taken in by the Winstar scam, an outright scam, in even its bare conception, from the outset, but adopted change in moral and practical expressions of a pilosophical [sic] world-outlook contrary to the standpoint of my life's work in our association. They were typical of those who, out of cowardice, reacted to the developments of 1984-1989, by surrendering, emotionally and intellectually to the enemy, waving the "white flag of surrender" while shouting to the smiling adversary, "Please, don't shoot us; we and our families need that money!"

EB: Artful combination of LaRouche's obsession with Winstar, and his obsession with the--relatively speaking--legions who dropped out during 1984-1989, horrified by developments indeed. Among those developments were the unbridled loan-taking: the Feds said it topped out at $34 million in mostly unpaid loans. Also, the Boston credit card grand jury, the deranged lawsuit against NBC [that worked out well], the October 1986 raid and LaRouche's psychotic telegram to President Reagan, the trials, the ravings, the sudden disappearance of the Boston Three on a five-year odyssey as fugitives from justice....White flag of surrender, my foot! Maybe the dropouts had just decided LaRouche was the worst strategist and tactician they'd ever seen.

LAROUCHE: "Lyn is wrong about the economy," was the common expression of this fear-driven apostasy, The ranks of the "Gideon's Army" grew smaller in this way.

EB: Apostasy? Interesting choice of words, with its principal meaning of abandonment of one's religion. When will God tell LaRouche that LaRouche is not God?

LAROUCHE: This problem, as a flight from sane economic outlook into middle-class Baby-Boomer-style fantasy-life, became clear to me in January 1996, at the first general meeting on behalf of my Presidential election. This sickened state of mind ran rampant through our association through the 2000 collapse of the Y2K bubble.

EB: LaRouche is referring to a memorable evening on which, to get an audience for a LaRouche speech that was being filmed and turned into a Presidential campaign half-hour TV ad, the Leesburg National Center powers-that-be rounded up a bunch of exhausted members who had already been working for 11 hours or so and herded them over to Alexandria or somewhere to sit in the audience at some hotel while LaRouche spoke.

The effect was hilarious, as you could see on the subsequent TV ad. The "audience" were nodding, snoozing, staring glazed-eyed--and why not? They were bone-tired. But LaRouche saw the [tapes] and immediately threw one of those tiresome tantrums of his, attacking the membership for all sorts of flaws, moral and intellectual, because they dozed off during his speech. And, as with every other slight in his long life, he never got over it, as we see 11 years later.

Oh, and by "Y2K bubble" he means dot.com bubble. He's just confused.

LAROUCHE: It was that state of mind among a significant number of those among and around us, which not only bankrupted PMR virtually by 2000, but had virtually bankrupted our association as a by-product of the loss of the subscription fulfillment (for New Federalist, EIR, and others) which had been our association's chief economic base of continued operations, and "fourth circle" base of organized political and related support.

EB: He can't resist. The "loyal member" is getting it in the neck again. Here again we have LaRouche blaming Kronberg for destroying the organization, this time the subscription base. Someone needs to tell LaRouche, as has been mentioned before, that in normal business, the printer is not responsible to pay for the mailing, the customer is. What this shows is that for years--decades--PMR did pay for the mailing, to a great extent unreimbursed. LaRouche just can't cope with the idea of paying for services.

Now we learn that the subscription base was our chief source of income--but how many times have you heard LaRouche explain that subscriptions are liabilities, not assets? The world's greatest economist has slipped a cog again.

Plus his overuse of the word "virtually" screams out "I'm lying."

LAROUCHE: Today, we are faced with the situation among us, that belief in Winstar, in the fantasies of PMR's management, and so on, are already gone or waning among those of us with even the shards of sanity, but the scars on the mind which formerly habituated illusions have produced, persist. During that period, when those and kindred, misleading fantasies were treated as "inside knowledge" of the gossip circuits, the outlooks of those victimized by these errant fads were habituated among some as "our traditions," even when those policies themselves were dead.

EB: Well, yes, the belief in the "fantasies of PMR's management" is gone, because PMR's management is gone. I guess Nancy Spannaus needs to revise her obituary of Ken Kronberg to take out the part about "his role in the physical production of the LaRouche organization's literature--at which he was a genius...." She'd better do it soon, before she finds herself on the cutting-room floor along with hubby Ed, "'reduced to the rank of buck private' until such time as a different status might be generously bestowed upon him," in LaRouche's memorable words from summer 2006.

LAROUCHE: As relevant publications and policies of outreach, from the 1970s on attest, we were always premised on what came to be hated among what are now our former associates in the U.S.A. and Europe, whether the anglophile whores of "Uriah Heep" Friesecke's gang of habituated liars, the "right wingers" from the downward flow of the left bank of the Rhine, or Fearful Fernando's Fascist Fakers in the U.S.A.

EB: Say whaaa?

To sum up [LaRouche's] tortured section on "Karl Marx's Economics" (which I omit): Karl Marx was always an agent of British imperialism, kind of like Molly Kronberg. Well, fine, but why on earth was Lyndon LaRouche, the world's greatest etc., a "Marxian" for all those years then? Look it up, kids. In black and white, and Red all over.

LAROUCHE: We have ("we" as I typify "we") the best insight into this system of any known person, or persons living today. We also have a method of forecasting, developed uniquely by me, which is systemically rooted in the method which Bernard Riemann crafted on his principal predecessors, from Cusa and Kepler, through Liebniz, and Riemann. My method of forecasting is systemically dynamic, whereas all putative rivals, including my foolishly forecasting friends in Leesburg and elsewhere, rely upon statistical-forecasting methods derived from Descartes. Marx was a neo-Cartesian on this account.

EB: The best line in the whole thing! We-as-I-typify-we: "We will make man in Our image." Really, Lyn, now that you're 85, isn't a little humility in order?

Never mind that we have a method crafted by Riemann "on" his predecessors--Cusa, Kepler, Liebniz, and ...Riemann? [Hey, what happened to Gauss?] Never mind all the balderdash in this paragraph, because coming up you have...

LAROUCHE: The mental map of the universe in which I live, once built, never changes in any essential feature of practice, until the person holding such a map is dead, in one sense or another. Most people in my time have not shown convincing evidence that they have such a coherent map, although they will, nonetheless, unwittingly, be possessed by one.

EB: Translation: In my world--my rigid, unbending, therefore brittle, impervious mental economy--no dialogue is possible and no thought is needed (just as well, since it's also not possible). Whatever happened to the "Philosopher of Change," as LaRouche has outrageously mischaracterized Plato? What ever happened to process, to evolution/development, to dynamis? Hylozoic monism?

This is the "mental map" of a disturbed mind characterized by fatal rigidity, a mind already dead in several senses.

But it's not just him. Unwittingly, the people of "my time" are being possessed by "the mental map of the universe in which I live."

The solipsist has spoken. What he means to say, pace Descartes, is "I think, therefore I am." The rest of you are merely predicates of my Individual Sovereignty.

And there I think we will let the matter rest....and for any sightings of Kronberg book-throwing, email me at: eaglebeak001@gmail.com.

RETURN TO MAIN PAGE