Postings at Lyndon LaRouche Watch, October 31, 2008 - August 5, 2011

Current postings HERE

Aug. 5: Former LaRouche follower regrets having written 1992 article mentioned in the manifesto of Norway shooter Anders Behring Breivik. From letter to Chip Berlet posted on Berlet's blog: "I see very clearly that the whole enterprise [the research and writing of the 1992 attack on the Frankfurt School]--and especially the conclusions--was hopelessly deformed by self-censorship and the desire to in some way support Mr. LaRouche's crack-brained world-view.

"So, in that sense, I do not stand by what I wrote, and I find it unfortunate that it [is] still remembered."

July 15: The Strange Life of the Late Fred Newman. Historian Ron Radosh draws some of the hard lessons from the Newmanite infiltration of New York politics that the New York Times, in its obit on Chairman Fred, was too timid (or too protective of Mayor Bloomberg) to grapple with.

I find it noteworthy that Radosh and many people with views radically different from his seem to be at one about Fred Newman and the social therapy cult. Indeed, there's a broad consensus of sorts among pundits, scholars and activists with an interest in political weirdness (or who've witnessed the Newmanites in action) that social therapy a/k/a the International Workers Party is a malignant outfit. This consensus, extending across the political spectrum, has included--for example--Radosh, a neocon; Christopher Hitchens, a half-neocon; Justin Raimondo, a paleocon isolationist; Tim Wolhforth (quoted by Radosh), an ex-Trotskyist turned democratic socialist; Chip Berlet, a liberal-leftist with a "movement" background...and I could extend the list of names on and on, even without getting into the anarchist or Marxist-to-the-end-of-time spheres.

Some of these Newman critics might play the left vs. right double standard game regarding various other obnoxious political figures ("your extremist ally is more dangerous than my extremist ally") or might even disagree over how to define a particular villain (LaRouche is a fascist! no, he's a communist!). But there doesn't seem much margin of disagreement on Newman.

Is this Newman's great achievement in life--that his narcissism, grandiosity and piggish behavior earned him condemnation across the spectrum? Unfortunately, the New York socialites and other charitable do-gooders who stuff his cult's pockets with cash have always been oblivious to such criticisms. They see his charities through rose-tinted glasses. Meanwhile, his "life partner" women at the Bank Street collective are laughing all the way to the piggy bank.

July 7: Cult leader Fred Newman dead at age 76. Rick Ross of Cult News writes that Newman died "late Sunday July 3rd of renal and subsequent cardiac failure." Newman was a philosophy teacher in the 1960s but "was fired from seven colleges. Later he created something that he called 'Social Therapy.' According to Newman, who was not a psychologist...his therapy is about 'two workers, revolutionary therapist and slave/patient, [and their] struggle together to make a revolution through their practice.' The goal is 'helping the slave reach the point of insurrection' and 'to make proletarian truth and freedom where there is now bourgeois truth and slavery.'"

Fred Newman, 1935-2011.

June 30: "We Are a Republic, Not a Democracy." Article by LaRouche published in EIR, Feb. 12, 2010, with highlighting added. The Big Guy tells us here exactly what we need to know: "The essence of evil, is insisting that popular opinion must sit in judgement on truth" (i.e., if you disagree with me, you're evil). In a section entitled "President Obama Goes Down," he warns that Obama's supporters "are going the way of the foolish King Louis XVI" (guess that means Lyn's already preparing the guillotines). And then there's the "sickly brownish spread of malthusian mass death" and the "dionysiacal form of criminal madness" that are undermining civilization. And he urges us not to forget what the British did to Joan of Arc in the 15th century, "cook[ing her] to death alive, like some fresh lobster or crab fresh and living from the restaurant's tank." The movie is scheduled for release early next year starring Casey Anthony as Joan.

June 30: Nutty or not, LaRouche still has quite a few tricks in his bag. Some people argue that the LaRouche organization is only a bizarre cult, inward-turned and no longer able to do any political harm. This is, among other things, a good excuse for ex-LaRouche followers not to come forward with any of the cult's secrets and thereby risk embarrassing themselves and other former members. But read what journalist Max Blumenthal, author of Republican Gomorrah: Inside The Movement That Shattered The Party, wrote in a Dec. 2009 column:

"The right complemented its anti-Obama propaganda with false rumors designed to inject the language of death into the healthcare debate. The single most damaging rumor, adopted from the cult of Lyndon LaRouche, refined by former New York State Lt. Governor Betsy McCaughey, and mainstreamed by Palin, was that Obama's health care reform proposal included a plan to implement 'death panels.' While the president pleaded for compromise and reason, the right repeated the baseless charge over and over, insisting that the president had a secret plan to pull the plug on grandma, euthanize the severely handicapped, and kill the sick..."

For more on how the LaRouche movement may have influenced the far-right attacks on Obama, see what The Joker to the Thief has to say.

June 30: LaRouche plays the indirect threat game. In a Sept. 2009 LaRouchePAC press release, he says that Obama should back down on health care "or he might be hung." And then he addresses his words to Obama directly: "You've lost, Mr. President....You are a damn fool. You need to listen to people who are smarter than you. Face it. You are a terrible failure. I am trying to save you, Mr. Failure." In effect, LaRouche is saying, "make me, Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr., the power behind the throne, or else."

June 17, 2011: LaRouche compares Obama to a trained monkey or a zoo creature. "And we have a dictatorship in the United States, which is in the direction of a Nazi dictatorship, under a President who doesn't have much conscience, because he doesn't have any brains. He's trained to talk like a trained monkey, or something out of a mechanical zoo..." (From the transcript of "Down with the British Empire!," a Sept. 8, 2009 webcast address by LaRouche; see page 3 of PDF (page 6 of EIR).)

June 16, 2011: Press release on LaRouche's recent manifestations of extreme racism. "It's time for the NAACP and other civil rights organizations to speak out against the hate rhetoric of LaRouche's cult and its use of deceptive come-ons and 'ego-stripping' indoctrination methods to recruit and exploit young people of all races."

June 11, 2011: Top LaRouche aide jokes about "chimpanzees" in the White House. When asked by his cult-leader boss where a chimp goes to vote in U.S. elections, EIR's John Hoefle answered right on cue.

John Hoefle, senior economist of LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review.

June 10, 2011: LaRouche in horse country. "Dressed in what he believed to be informal English country squire attire, complete with elbow-patch-embossed tweed jacket, riding boots, and woolen cap, he together with Helga led the NEC and a crowd of hangers-on...down the 100-yard path from the mansion to the estate gate, talking excitedly about the property, how many trees and creeks it had, what kinds of new cattle breeds [would be raised] with new scientific methods and how these cattle would supply Labor Committee members with good beef for their dinner for years to come."

June 10, 2011: LaRouche is still glorifying the Nazi old-boy network. Here's a press release from LPAC about the death last December at age 96 of Nazi V-2 scientist Walter Haeussermann, who came to the U.S. under "Operation Paperclip" after the war along with SS-Sturmbannführer Werner von Braun, eventually settling in the time-warp community of Nazi rocketeers in Huntsville, Ala. (where he and his pals would feast off each other's psychology of denial and self-justification, while adulating the late von Braun as a Hitler surrogate).

Walter Haeussermann, 1914-2010: denial until the bitter end.

The LaRouchian statement praises Haeussermann's leading role in the campaign (which LaRouche & Co. helped to organize in the mid-1980s) to stop the U.S. government from deporting Arthur Rudolph, another Paperclip rocket scientist. Rudolph had served as production manager at an underground V-2 factory that used slave labor from the Dora-Nordhausen concentration camp, and where thousands died from starvation, disease and overwork--or were executed by guards--on Rudolph's watch.

The LPAC release, of course, gives Rudolph's past a different spin:

"Haeussermann also became very active in civic and political affairs in Huntsville. When the German space pioneers learned, in 1984, that their colleague, and Saturn V rocket manager, Arthur Rudolph, had been terrorized into leaving the U.S. under threat of prosecution for Nazi war crimes, Dr. Haeussermann became the public spokesman for the group's fight against the outrageous charges. Walter Haeussermann spoke and wrote, organizing support for Rudolph's exoneration, and co-authored an op-ed with this writer, which was published in space periodicals." (emphasis added)

The unnamed writer of the release apparently is apparently Marsha Freeman of 21st Century Science & Technology, who has long been the LaRouche org's ambassador to the rapidly dwindling Huntsville rocketeer community.

The release also states that "Haeussermann was a part of the generation that, through all of the privations of the Depression, the Second World War, and the attacks on their contributions in the post-Apollo U.S., never lost his [sic] optimism that space exploration would be mankind's future."

Ah yes, the privations of those poor Nazis who weren't thinking about conquering the world and exterminating inferior races, but only about going to Mars. And please tell us why LaRouche's publications always express their respects when one of these creeps dies, but ignore most of the scores of non-Nazi notables in science and engineering who die each year.

The LaRouchian response to Haeussermann's death is not an isolated expression of sentimental regard for someone the LaRouche org once worked with, but part of an ongoing effort to glorify Nazi rocket science. This is shown by, among other things, Freeman's article "Mars: The Next Fifty Years" that appeared in the Sept. 4, 2009 Executive Intelligence Review (read here or here).

For more on the LaRouche organization's soft spot for former Nazi rocketeers, read "Old Nazis and New Dreams" (Chapter 10 of Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism).

Dec. 29: Molly Kronberg refiles her lawsuit against Lyndon LaRouche, Barbara Boyd, et al. Here's an article from Courthouse News Service, posted today, that should prove embarrassing to the LaRouche organization. On Dec. 8, LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review had published a piece entitled "Judge Tosses Kronberg Case, Cites Abuse of Federal Court" that made it seem Mrs. Kronberg was down for the count--and that LaRouche had scored a major victory at the Alexandria, Va. federal courthouse. Well, not exactly: the article's description of the implications of Judge Anthony J. Trenga's Dec. 7 order was wildly inaccurate (see the actual text of the Trenga order at Dec. 8 posting below), and now Mrs. Kronberg's new attorney, James DelSordo of Manassas, Va., has filed a complaint against the original defendants that supplements the nearly identical complaint filed in 2009. In other words, the case is once again moving towards a jury trial where LaRouche will be hard put to explain his odious libels of a widow whose husband, Kenneth Lewis Kronberg, committed suicide in 2007 after LaRouche himself suggested that he do so. I suspect there's some sad faces at LaRouche Central in Leesburg tonight.

Dec. 22: Recruitment, "Big Brother" style. This is an affidavit of Peter E. Tennenbaum, submitted to the London High Court in May 2010 pursuant to Erica Duggan's application for a new inquest into the 2003 death of her son Jeremiah while attending a LaRouche indoctrination school in Wiesbaden, Germany. (The court approved Ms. Duggan's application and the new inquest opened the following month.)

Tennenbaum describes a personal experience with the LaRouche organization in Wiesbaden that appears to have been similar to that of Jeremiah Duggan, although Tennenbaum's was in 1977 (26 years earlier than Jeremiah's fatal encounter with the same cult in the same city).

Tennenbaum states that he was enticed to a LaRouche conference under false pretenses by his older brother Jonathan (a strong LaRouche supporter), kept under constant surveillance, and subjected to several days of intense, nonstop brow-beating and indoctrination. He also states that they tried to take away his passport, and threatened to mutilate his sister if he didn't join them.

Like Jeremiah Duggan, Peter Tennenbaum strongly resisted the indoctrination process; unlike Jeremiah, Peter escaped with his life.

Dec. 21: "Who Knows More About Plato—This 19-Year-Old Boy, or the 'Platonist' Lyndon LaRouche?" This introduction to the prize-winning St. John's College (Santa Fe campus) senior thesis (1968) of Kenneth Lewis Kronberg was written by his widow, Molly Hammett Kronberg. Her husband, a longtime follower of Lyndon LaRouche, committed suicide on April 11, 2007--after years of intense emotional abuse and financial exploitation by his mentor.

Mrs. Kronberg includes a moving account of a conversation on poetry between Ken and his son three days before Ken's death. She argues that Ken, although unwilling to just walk away from the LaRouche organization, had learned how to keep a personal distance from its intellectual hysteria and had often advanced independent views on subjects closest to his heart.

The last section of Mrs. Kronberg's introduction contrasts the tradition and etiquette of the "Great Dialogue" that Ken learned at St. John's with the us-versus-them fanaticism of LaRouche. Mrs. Kronberg writes: "The great dialogue insists on one constraint: To participate, we must listen....It is impermissible to reject, to denounce in a fury, without having once heard. And if we have heard, then it is unnecessary to denounce--it is possible to argue."

Ken Kronberg's senior thesis can be read at (a memorial website) here.

Dec. 20: Once again, Google News allows itself to be a conduit for LaRouche's Big Lie. Smears appearing in the LaRouche organization's Executive Intelligence Review have an unfair advantage on Google News. If you go to the web's most popular news aggregator you'll see EIR's bald-faced lies about the Jeremiah Duggan case and about Molly Kronberg's lawsuit against LaRouche et al. being presented as legitimate reportage--with almost nothing from the mainstream media to counter this propaganda barrage. Lyndon LaRouche Watch analyzes why this is the case, and urges Google to fix the problem.

Dec. 20: See what liars the LaRouchians are? Here is their response to Judge Trenga's decision to NOT dismiss Mrs. Kronberg's case with prejudice and to NOT force her to pay the legal expenses of defendants LaRouche, Boyd et al.

The statement from the LaRouche Political Action Committee claims that the judge had "toss[ed]" the case on grounds of the "bad faith" of Kronberg and/or her attorney and their "abuse of the federal legal system."

Readers can go to the item directly below--the full text of Judge Trenga's order--and see for themselves that LPAC's description of the judge's order is skewed out of all recognition.

The fact of the matter is that Mrs. Kronberg has a new attorney who will be refiling Kronberg v. LaRouche et al. shortly. LaRouche is far from being out of the woods.

Dec. 8: Molly Kronberg's lawsuit against LaRouche dismissed WITHOUT prejudice. Here we have the ruling by Federal District Judge Anthony J. Trenga on the motion by LaRouche and his co-defendants to dismiss Mrs. Kronberg's complaint WITH prejudice (meaning, she would be unable to refile without appealing to a higher court) and to make her pay their court costs.

The judge's decision--dismissal WITHOUT prejudice--is basically good news for Mrs. Kronberg. The judge had disqualified her original attorney, former AUSA John Markham of Boston, while her Virginia co-counsel John Bond had a health condition that made it impossible for him to carry on (while ill, he failed to answer interrogatories and document requests from plaintiffs' attorneys in spite of urgent requests by Mrs. Kronberg that he do so).

The judge ruled that Mr. Bond could withdraw as counsel of record for Mrs. Kronberg, and she has obtained a new attorney, James DelSordo of Manassas, Va., who will refile the case shortly. The LaRouche team, having failed to obtain a dismissal with prejudice on procedural grounds, may attempt another motion to dismiss on the merits of the case, but the judge denied such a motion last April and it is unlikely he will reverse himself since the facts of the original complaint remain unchanged.

Judge Trenga also denied the request by LaRouche and his co-defendants for monetary sanctions against Mrs. Kronberg and/or Mr. Bond. The penurious LaRouche will regard this as an important setback, since according to a source close to the case "the defendants have humongous lawyers' fees because they have motions to file like dogs have fleas."

In summarizing the issues on which he was ruling, Judge Trenga quoted--but did not endorse--the viewpoint of the defendants: "Kronberg's lawsuit is totally without foundation and was filed not for any legitimate reason, but rather for publicity and harassment as part of Kronberg's long-standing personal vendetta against Lyndon LaRouche and the other Defendants in this matter."

That's the position of LaRouche & Co.--but Judge Trenga's decision appears to embody an implicit recognition that if there's any "harassment" and "vendetta" in this case, its source is LaRouche and his followers, not the Widow Kronberg.

Dec. 3: Jeremiah Duggan's mother blasts the former leaders of the German LaRouche movement--and an Israeli academic who's serving as their enabler. Weird as it may seem, people who were top anti-Semitic propagandists for LaRouche just five years ago are now cozying up to the Jewish intellectual community in Berlin with the help of the Hebraic Graduate School of Europe and Rabbi Prof. Eveline Goodman-Thau, an Israeli philosopher and multidisciplinary scholar who lists Holocaust Studies as one of her specialties.

Ms. Duggan writes, in this "open letter" to Goodman-Thau: "They [the "Solon" group of ex-LaRouchians] were in the leadership of the anti-Semitic LaRouche network for decades and know its secrets. Yet they've never talked, never apologized, and they refuse to provide information about the death of my son."

And Goodman-Thau herself has become part of the problem, according to Ms. Duggan's letter: "You've reinforced their belief that they can just walk away from what they've done without ever having to make amends. And even worse, you've allowed them to use your good name to gain for themselves a positive public image which they have not earned and do not deserve."

Dec. 1: "Being a LaRouche follower is dangerous for your health." An ex-member of the LaRouche organization writes about exposure to carcinogens, high stress levels, unsafe "LaRoucheMobiles," and lack of routine health care in the cult that has the nerve to compare President Obama's health care policies to those of the Nazis.

Nov. 24: "Summer camp, LaRouche-style." The LaRouchians invited a free spirit with a strong rebellious streak to their 2003 cadre school at California's Big Bear Lake. I suspect they vetted their potential recruits a bit more carefully thereafter.

Nov. 3: Worst possible alternate U.S. election. The following question was posed this post-election morning on the Alternate History Forum: "Which opposing candidate from any election winning would cause the worst possible scenario. By alternate candidate I mean the actual elections and someone from a major party. And by worst situation I mean largest amount of total human suffering from that point to the present."

Forum participants took this to mean which alternate candidate in a Presidential election, and I noted with amusement whose name came up first (and then again). The person I'm referring to was an apt choice, since he happens to be quite familiar with alternate universes--like the one in his own head.

For a serious reply to the worst-election question (i.e., one for which a plausible scenario could be constructed), see post #13.

Sept. 27: Oops! LaRouche caught in yet another blooper re the Jeremiah Duggan case. From an unsigned article on the LaRouche Planet website:

"LaRouche claims that the '(Tony) Blair forces' created the Justice for Jeremiah campaign (i.e. blaming LaRouche for being responsible for Jeremiah's death) to cover up the fact that Blair 'murdered David Kelly'!

"FACT: the VERY lawyer defending the Duggan family, Ms. Swaine, happens to be the SAME lawyer trying to re-open the case of Dr. Kelly’s death!"

The details in this article make LaRouche look even more foolish than usual, but if he's true to form he'll just tell his followers that it's part of the giant conspiracy--i.e., that Ms. Swaine took on the Kelly case at the command of powerful forces purely and simply to embarrass LaRouche.

As LaRouche would have it, Ms. Swaine and a huge number of other people are devoting themselves night and day to opposing him on behalf of powerful oligarchs (and oligarchical agents) such as Tony Blair, the Royal Family, Dick Cheney, George Soros and the ever-present Rothschilds and Goldsmiths. These people, LaRouche suggests, have nothing better to do with their time than concoct schemes to Stop Lyn!

Thus, characteristically, does LaRouche divert his followers' attention away from evidence of his own fallibility by twisting and reframing incidents and facts into bogus evidence that he is a world-historic figure opposed by world-class villains--a perception which of course only strengthens his disciples' devotion to him.

The pseudo-logic is as follows: (a) I am the great genius who can save humanity from powerful evil forces; (b) these powerful evil forces are conspiring to stop me; (c) they wouldn't be doing that if I wasn't in fact the great savior that I say I am.

"I see...point (c) is being used to prove point (a), but in fact point (c) proves nothing unless you first establish the truth of (a) and (b)..."

In essence, LaRouche's mental judo is no different from the simple reframing tricks used by hypnotists, Madison Avenue advertising executives, and political campaign spin doctors. I hope that at least one budding LaRouche recruit will read this explication (and the LaRouche Planet article), suddenly "get it," and decide not to attend that weekend retreat on a mountain far from any convenient means of egress.

August 24: "Fidel 'Joins' the Labor Committee." Here's a trip down memory lane to the days when LaRouche and his cohorts thought very highly of Fidel Castro. The headline of this article from the Winter 1971 Campaigner is based on the perception by LaRouche & Co. that Castro's ideas and program were converging with their own. I'm posting this relic of the anti-Vietnam war era because just last week the doddering old former dictator of Cuba belatedly returned LaRouche's compliment (such as it was) by posting on the internet a conspiracy theory taken largely from LaRouchian articles and books published in the 1970s (read it here).

And note which Willis Carto-linked conspiracy entrepreneur of the present day is listed on the masthead (second page of the PDF) as a member of the Campaigner editorial board along with "L. Marcus" (LaRouche).

August 2: LaRouche on violence, sex, subhuman "muck," and what it feels like to be "psychologically dead." This is a PDF of "Whoa, Boy!" (March 20, 1973), a discussion paper (possibly based on a speech), that LaRouche circulated to his followers as they were undergoing training for Operation Mop Up--a series of violent attacks on their leftwing enemies.

LaRouche wanted his warriors to understand that "feelings do not exist as feelings....To call forth a feeling is to call forth the movement of the object-image attached to the feeling." And he provided karate training as an example:

"It is of course necessary to acquire certain habits of movement, develop certain physiological apparatus, etc., but the essential thing to striking a killer blow, etc. is to 'learn' to call up the feeling of the killer stroke and have all the musculature move in a coordinated fashion to actualize the object-image attached to that 'trained' relationship between the objective striking and the recall of the feeling for striking. Call up the strongest feeling, have the object-idea of the movements attached to that feeling, and the blow will sensuously actualize the force of the feeling to the very limit of your physical capacity."

Ah, the feeling of satisfaction in striking a "killer blow"! Reminds me of the defensive wounds (as the forensic expert called them) that were detected on the arms of Jeremiah Duggan's body--and the unexplained blood on his passport.

Jeremiah's death occurred while he was participating in (but planning to flee from) a LaRouche indoctrination session in Wiesbaden, Germany on March 27, 2003--only one week after the 30th anniversary of LaRouche's killer-blow pronouncement.

Probably the individuals present in the LaRouche movement's Wiesbaden offices in the wee hours of March 27, 2003 either had never read or had retained only a dim memory of LaRouche's pre-Mop Up "Whoa, Boy!" memo. Nevertheless, over the years following Mop Up, LaRouche assiduously stimulated hatred, rage and sadism in his followers--and glorified violence in an attempt to influence both his followers and the general public--through a thousand and one other exhortations.

These rants made it inevitable that deaths would sooner or later begin to occur either directly at the hands of LaRouche's philosopher-thugs or through cowardly incitements of the type that occurred in Chiapas, Mexico; Spain; and elsewhere.

"Whoa, Boy!" is one of the earliest examples of LaRouche attempting to steer his followers into this path of hate, and may have been especially effective with some of them because he couched his message in pseudo-intellectual terminology, thus appealing to their vanity. The document is presented here as a kind of psycho-political daguerreotype depicting Der Abscheulicher's malignant narcissism--and his movement's resulting nastiness--in their germinal stage: the seed of the poisonous tree.

June 25: "Police asked to investigate death of Golders Green student Jeremiah Duggan." Article in today's Hampstead and Highgate Express clarifies the issue of LaRouche's relationship to the inquest. Coroner Andrew Walker did not rule that LaRouche could be an interested party, but did say: "This inquest needs to be fair and it must clearly warn any party that their conduct may be criticised in sufficient time for that party to establish what course of action they want to take." Here are further excerpts:

"At North London Coroners' Court in High Barnet on Tuesday, Mr Walker adjourned the second inquest to give specialist murder detectives from Scotland Yard time to investigate and asked for evidence gathered by Mrs Duggan to be handed to police.

"He said: 'I don't see how any other approach could be taken. There needs to be a proper investigation by the police and then any necessary steps taken after.'

"He added: 'It would of course be helpful if the material held on behalf of the family is delivered to the police.'"

And the response of the Duggan family:

"There were emotional scenes at the end of the hearing when Jeremiah's parents, spoke of their relief at the coroner's decision to involve the British police.

"Mrs Duggan said: 'We have been waiting for this day for seven years.

"'The one thing we wanted was for the British Police to do their own investigation. I know they will treat this quite differently.

"'I felt today for the first time the family and the victims were being put in the centre of this process. The coroner was listening to what we wanted and also to findings of the High Court and said this should be investigated.'"

June 25: The mysterious "Ace." I appear to have struck home with my attack on the Daniel Platt and Patrick Ruckert internet psywar shop (American System Publications), as evidenced by the obscene reference to me by a Duggan-family-bashing LaRouchian with the user name "Ace" that was posted on Factnet the day after I named Platt and Ruckert in my item directly below.

I ask Ace and all of his Jew-hating associates who hide behind user names, and employ sock puppets to make people think they have wide support: if you are so sure that LaRouche is the savior of Western civilization, why don't you come out in the open under your real names? You should stand proud for your leader...if you're really all that proud of him.

It's not as if you're in the same boat as ex-members who have businesses, jobs and/or families to protect and a well-grounded fear of harassment. No one is harassing you, and you have safe jobs working for LaRouche. You have no practical reason not to post under your real names. But of course if you did so, you'd be implicitly admitting to your involvement in over six years of lies, deceptions and other unethical behavior on Wikipedia, Wikipedia Review, and elsewhere on the web.

And I wonder which one of you posted (doubtless in hopes Mrs. Duggan would see it) the statement that Jeremiah Duggan was just a young man who "liked to run around in traffic." Was this bit of mordant "humor" about a Jewish student who died while attending a LaRouche event perhaps the work of the person at ASP who was busted some years ago for beating up an elderly Jew on a Seattle street simply because the Jew expressed opposition to an "anti-Zionist" LaRouchian sign?

June 24: Will new inquest bring justice for Jeremiah? Comments on the upcoming inquest from Charlie Pottins' blog. Especially good is Pottins' reply to the predictable LaRouche troll.

Troll: "This so-called inquest is a total fraud. The German authorities have proven over and over again that the unfortunate Jeremy committed suicide. He was alone. He had no assistance or other motivation."

Pottins: "Yes, that is the LaRouchite line. But no explanation has been given as to why Jeremiah, a cheerful, successful student, should have committed suicide in this strange way, whereas enough evidence has been produced to raise serious questions as to how and why he died...

"And if LaRouche and his organisation are totally innocent, one might ask why they did not seek a full investigation themselves as to how and why a young man who had come to their conference and been due to attend a cadre school should have met his death?...

"And why would an organisation with nothing to hide be worried about an inquest? It is not even a criminal prosecution yet, but nor is it a "so-called inquest", it is an inquest, and the LaRouche organisation has officially declared an interest, not dismissed it as a "total fraud".

Although Pottins pretty well demolishes the troll, I can't help but add a couple of things. First, note how the troll ("Howie G"--not to be confused with the "Howie" on Factnet) states as fact things about Jeremiah's death he couldn't possibly know ("He was alone. He had no assistance or other motivation.") without having been present, especially since Jeremiah's death was never really investigated by the German police.

Second, note the sadistic reference to Jeremiah as "Jeremy"--a trick that LaRouche himself uses to show his disdain for the Duggan family and to rip away Jeremiah's Jewish identity after the young man's life had already been taken (and thus to kill him twice--first physically and then spiritually--as an ex-LaRouche associate noted on Factnet).

The nastiness of "Howie G" makes me suspect he comes from Daniel Platt and Patrick Ruckert's internet "psywar" shop on the West Coast, which rampaged through the LaRouche-related articles on Wikipedia for several years under dozens of sock puppet names. They've also popped up on the Skull Bones blog, Factnet and just about anywhere that criticism of LaRouche appears. They never use their real names and they often pretend they are not LaRouche followers but just independent-minded citizens with a sense of fair play (however, they soon begin to employ buzz phrases that no one on this planet except a LaRouche follower would even dreaming of using...).

June 22 (corrected June 23): Scotland Yard to probe death of Jeremiah Duggan. What follows are excerpts from a Harrow Observer (London) article today by Ian Proctor:

"Murder detectives from Britain will be at last investigating the death in Germany of a Jewish ex-Harrow schoolboy through what his family believe was 'foul play'...

"The new inquest of Jeremiah Duggan was reopened at North London Coroner's Court in Barnet today (June 22) by the coroner, Andrew Walker.

Her Majesty's Coroner Andrew Walker.

"Neil Sheldon, the family's barrister, told him: 'Underlying this inquest are very serious potential allegations of wrongdoing--that Jeremiah was killed as result of foul play by individuals acting on their own or under the behest of the organisation that is running the event.

"'There is the question of whether Jeremiah was also subject to a sustained psychological attack prior to his death and whether that caused him to act completely out of character or be careless of his surroundings.'

"Supporters of the Justice for Jeremiah Campaign believe the student was somehow pursued by recruiters for LaRouche, a sister organisation of the Wiesbaden conference organisers that Mr Sheldon described in court as an 'political cult run by a convicted fraudster which has anti-Semitism and fascism in its ideology'...

"The Metropolitan Police's serious crime directorate will be handed the file in a fortnight and a second pre-inquest review will be held in a month to update everyone."

The article also stated: "Mr. Walker told the court that because of the allegations, LaRouche has to be recognised as an 'interested party' and so he would have to write to the organisation to invite it to send someone to attend the inquest, and that the family's evidence would have to be properly disclosed to them."

According to Erica Duggan, this is not entirely accurate--Mr. Walker said that he would have to notify LaRouche about the inquest and invite him to apply to become an interested party. If in fact he does apply, a hearing will be held at which the Duggan family's legal team intends to vigorously oppose his application, citing his organization's long history of criminal activity, including the use of obstruction of justice tactics.

In addition, since Scotland Yard's serious crime directorate will be handling the investigation it is unlikely that LaRouche will be able to win access to sensitive information about that investigation while it is in process, even if he is accepted as an interested party.

June 22: "Jeremiah Duggan inquest reopened." Article by Jennifer Lipman from The Jewish Chronicle (U.K.).

"Barrister Neil Sheldon told the coroner that there were 'serious potential allegations of wrongdoing' and 'foul play.'

"He added: 'There is the question of whether Jeremiah was also subject to a sustained psychological attack prior to his death.'"

June 22: Lyndon LaRouche and "Hate Crime" Laws. This illustrated report by another ex-LaRouche associate aims at giving the North London coroner's court a clear idea of just how fanatical and hate-filled the LaRouche movement is.

"For the last 30 years LaRouche has waged a relentless campaign of hate mongering against the British State and the Jews....LaRouche names his enemy and states he is at war with them....The LaRouche global movement echoes core themes of Nazi ideology...."

The report deals with LaRouche's hatred of the Royal family, his equation of the British with the Jews, his accusations that a Jewish-British conspiracy controls terrorism and drug trafficking, his history of Holocaust denial, and his homophobia. The conclusion to the report states:

"[LaRouche's] language is full of how certain people should be taken out, eradicated, assassinated. This kind of hatred puts lives in danger because it can lead to impressionable cult followers taking things into their own hands and carrying out violent acts in the belief they are saving the world."

June 22: "Pitted against the law!" Report prepared for the second Jeremiah Duggan inquest by a former LaRouche associate documents the violence, fraud and obstructions of justice perpetrated by the LaRouche org from Operation Mop Up in 1973 through the loan scams and attempts to evade prosecution in the mid to late 1980s. Conclusion: "LaRouche et al. can be expected to try to undermine, sabotage, and exploit any legal hearing" (including the new Duggan inquest).

June 21: LaRouche on the "Jeremy" case. "The mother of this guy, not only does he--does she--continue this, this, go on with this policy, but she knew he's a suicide case and she's conducting a campaign of lies." Partial transcript by Justice for Jeremiah of the LaRouche PAC's "Weekly Update 6/11/10." LaRouche is speaking by telephone from Germany (and just why does the German government allow this convicted felon and fascist hate monger to set foot on German soil and spread his hate among German youth, anyway?).

June 18: "Eaglebeak" comments on LaRouche's latest "repellent garbage" about Jeremiah Duggan. "LaRouche makes the extravagant and nonsensical claims [in a June 11 webcast] that Jeremiah was on 'three kinds of drugs to avoid suicide,' that Erica Duggan knows Jeremiah committed suicide, and that the Jeremiah case was cooked up by Erica Duggan and Tony Blair to attack LaRouche after LaRouche's attacks on Blair..."

But unfortunately for LaRouche, "Jeremiah's autopsy (done in Britain--no such thing was done in Germany after his death) shows no drugs of any kind were present."

June 18: LaRouche's bid to become an interested party at the second Duggan inquest. Acid comments from Factnet's "Eaglebeak": "It seems to me...that if the LaRouche organization doesn't know anything about Jeremiah's death and has nothing to say about it, and had nothing to do with it, then the LaRouche organization would have let the inquest go forward without a murmur." And:

"It would have allowed its members to talk freely to Erica and Hugo Duggan, to the press, to each other.

"If they had nothing to do with it, they have nothing to hide.

"If they had nothing to do with it, they have no need, nor would they have any desire, to be made 'interested parties.'"

And read what Eaglebeak thinks this all reveals about the personal character of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr....

June 18: "Inquest into death of Golders Green student Jeremiah Duggan in Germany to open on Tuesday." Article by Alex Hayes from Time-Series (U.K.) quotes Jeremiah's mother: “We welcome the start of a process of justice that will, it is hoped, set a precedent of how human life is to be valued whether at home or abroad."

June 18: "Second inquest into the death of Jeremiah Duggan to open next week." The Hamstead & Highgate Express (London) writes that "a Golders Green mother's quest to find out the truth surrounding her son's death is set to take a giant leap forward." The article continues:

"Erica Duggan will take her seat at Barnet Coroners' Court on Tuesday when the second inquest into the death of her son Jeremiah will formally open...

"The inquest is expected to be adjourned while further investigations take place."

But get this:

"The Ham&High understands the group headed by American radical Lyndon LaRouche has applied to be an 'interested party' at the inquest."

Leave it to LaRouche to always behave in the tackiest, creepiest and most appalling manner possible. First, he established in the early 2000s a brutal indoctrination program for his LaRouche Youth Movement, knowing full well (by his own admission) that bad things might happen. Second, when Jeremiah Duggan died while attending one of these programs in 2003, LaRouche expressed no remorse whatsoever but manufactured lies about the young man being mentally ill and suicidal. And now, Der Abscheulicher wants to join the Duggan family as an "interested party" at the inquest.

Ah, yes, LaRouche the kindly old uncle. Next, he'll be claiming Jeremiah was like a son to him. (Actually LaRouche barely if at all knew the deceased, and can't even get his name straight--just last week LaRouche once again referred to Jeremiah as "Jeremy.")

"Interested party" Lyndon LaRouche grieves for "Jeremy."

There's a certain method to LaRouche's creepiness, however. He wants his organization to be an "interested party" in order to obtain inside knowledge of the soon-to-begin fact finding stage of the inquest, and thus find out who to intimidate, blackmail, or worse--and who, among people currently in the LaRouche organization, to send for extended organizing deployments to Brazil or Australia (i.e., hide them where the "sun doesn't shine," as Michele Steinberg of LaRouche's security staff so pithily expressed it during a previous official investigation of the organization's misdeeds).

June 17: How LaRouche recruits and controls young people. New addendum to Molly Kronberg's "Pawns of His Grandiosity." Observes that LaRouche Youth Movement retreats "really are 'retreats'--taking place in isolated mountain cabins or [other] isolated settings...Youth are brought there for a long weekend...There's no leaving, until the conference or 'cadre school' ends--one can't get up and walk out, unless one is prepared to hike for miles down a mountain."

June 4: Breaching the ex-LaRouche wall of silence. Former LaRouche associates in Germany who know how Jeremiah died--and those in both Germany and the U.S. who have information pertinent to understanding the German police's amazingly brazen coverup--are still unwilling to tell what they know, and thus are causing unnecessary anguish for Erica Duggan and Hugo Duggan. Furthermore, the ex-members who've remained silent are functioning (wittingly or not) as "enablers of LaRouche's ongoing efforts to successfully recruit and exploit a new generation of young disciples. If more recruits die--say, at some LaRouche indoctrination camp in Eastern Europe where it's easy to evade the law and keep indoctrinees forcibly isolated--the Silent Ones will have blood on their hands."

June 4: "Can you imagine having to study 79 photos of your son dead or dying in a pool of blood in the road?" In an article in the Barnet Press (London), Erica Duggan writes about her personal reaction to the High Court's May 20 decision to grant, "in the service of justice," a new inquest into Jeremiah's death: "That key phrase--'in the service of justice'--held out to me the promise that all that I had treasured and loved in my son Jeremiah would now be valued and not discarded like an unwanted shoe."

But Erica also expressed her anxieties about the obduracy of the German police and courts: "In Germany, the authorities, I believe deliberately, delay things....So far they have refused to investigate and there is a time limit of ten years, after which they do not have to investigate. Time will never run out for me and neither will it ever run out for Jeremiah's friends."

May 31: Webster Tarpley's explanation of why he left the LaRouche organization is "baloney." Factnet's "Eaglebeak" refutes Tarpley's account point by point, and calls on him to reveal what he knows about "the European org and the death of Jeremiah Duggan" and about the org's contacts with "terrorists and Islamic extremists." Other Factnet folks weigh in.

May 29: Webster Tarpley's dubious past. "Ex"-LaRouchian Tarpley, who makes his living by purveying LaRouche's conspiracy theories in a slightly sanitized form, tried recently to get the ear of economists specializing in the debt problems of Scandinavia and the Baltic states. U.S. economist Michael Hudson, a longtime foe of the LaRouche movement, struck back with emails that include some memorable quotes, like:

"If Tarpley really doesn't support LaRouche, let him tell the story of what he knows about the crimes and other bad behavior that he must have been a part of in the LaRouche cult. To remain silent IS to support LaRouche."

May 26: "Stay away from LaRouche completely!" Green Party activist Mitchel Cohen advises that the left should provide no toehold for LaRouche's band of not-so-merry pranksters. Mentions their campaign to destroy Petra Kelly in the 1980s. Provides an eye-witness account of LaRouchian lunacy in the 1970s: "hundreds of followers of LaRouche (then, Lyn Marcus) standing with fists in the air chanting...'Smash Behaviorism! Smash Behaviorism!'"

May 25: Molly Kronberg's petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Filed in Richmond, Va. on May 13, 2010, this is a petition for permission to appeal U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga's order disqualifying Mrs. Kronberg's lead counsel, former Assistant U.S. Attorney John Markham.

Lewis F. Powell U.S. Courthouse, home of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The question on which petitioner wishes the court to rule is set forth on pp. 4-5:

"Is a former government attorney barred from representing a private party suing someone who is harassing her because of testimony she gave against that defendant in a criminal case tried 22 years ago, in which the attorney now representing her was one of the prosecutors, but where there is no side-switching, where the government itself is not a party and does not object, and where the attorney lost access to all government confidential information 21 years ago and there is no showing that the attorney now has knowledge of any still-restricted information that could be used to the material disadvantage of the defendant and is not also known by the defendant?"

Petitioner's most important argument is found under the heading, "An Interlocutory Appeal is Appropriate Where the Issues Raised Are Without Precedent" (p. 6), and comes straight out of Judge Trenga's order certifying Mrs. Kronberg's petition to the Fourth Circuit:

"While deciding that Rule 1.11(c) required Markham's disqualification, the District Court, in its Order certifying an interlocutory appeal, noted that there 'is no reported judicial application of Rule 1.11(c) to facts comparable to those presented in this case,' that the Court's 'construction and application of Rule 1.11(c) is not the only reasonable construction, and...there are substantial grounds for a difference of opinion.'" (Page references omitted.)

Given the wording of Judge's Trenga's order, I think it's highly unlikely that the Fourth Circuit will reject Mrs. Kronberg's petition. And whether she wins or loses her appeal of Markham's disqualification, the novel point of law involved--and the newsworthy underlying circumstances--will have attracted the attention not only of the legal press but also of political blogs and the general media, letting more and more people know about Mrs. Kronberg's grievances.

Indeed, LaRouche is in a Catch-22. Even if the Fourth Circuit rules in his favor, the news regarding the decision will help to guarantee significant national media attention--if and when this case goes to trial--on how he harassed a widow with great cruelty in order to get even with her for testifying against him in a trial that resulted in his spending five years in a federal correctional center (for stealing the life savings of other widows).

May 25: Justice, German Style. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany turned down last February Erica Duggan's appeal of a 2006 decision by the Oberlandesgericht in Wiesbaden not to order a new investigation of her son Jeremiah's death. Here is the text in German of the Feb. 4 decision (use Google's translation button to get a rough idea of the contents).

Background: The Wiesbaden police decided within hours of Jeremiah's death that he had committed suicide and thus that no homicide investigation was warranted. This determination was in large part based on demonstrably false information provided by the LaRouche org. The Wiesbaden prosecutors have staunchly backed this position over the past seven years, ignoring the forensic and other evidence--including documentation of the LaRouche cult's anti-Semitism and history of mistreating recruits--compiled by the Duggan family.

As to the "evidence" on which the original police determinations and the rubber-stamp judicial decisions were based, here's what ex-LaRouche follower "Rachel Holmes" wrote in response to an attempt to make Wikipedia's "Death of Jeremiah Duggan" article more favorable to the official German (and the LaRouchian) viewpoint:

"There is no 'German position' to put forward except the stonewalling position claiming that Jeremiah Duggan committed suicide.

"Now, ask yourselves: How would the police know it was suicide? It's by no means obvious, when someone is hit by a car (IF Jeremiah was hit by a car) that it was suicide.

"There's only one place I can see that the police could have gotten their absurd, unproven, and impossible-to-prove line that it was suicide: from the Schiller Institute and EIR, whose office is a few doors down the street from where Jeremiah's body was found.

"Whose leader Ortrun Cramer just happened to have Jeremiah's bloodstained passport.


"You get the idea."

And here's the three-judge (er, four-judge) panel that made the Feb. 4 decision:

Siegfried Bross.

Michael Gerhardt.

Udo Di Fabio.

Adolf Ectoplasm.

May 24: "Lost Abroad - The Parents' Story" now on YouTube. Here's the segment of the British Channel 4 documentary that focusses on Erica Duggan's battle to find out what--or who--caused the death of her 22-year-old son Jeremiah in Wiesbaden, Germany in 2003. Includes video footage of Jeremiah as a happy young man with a whole life of creativity ahead of him--until he met LaRouche organizers in Paris.

May 22: "New inquest into death of Jerry Duggan." The "RandomPottins" blog reports Lord Justice Elias's statement that new evidence uncovered since the 2003 inquest suggests that the accident on the Wiesbaden motorway may have been "stage managed." The blog then looks at some of the evidence that could have influenced Elias on this point:

"Forensic experts who studied the evidence found the vehicles had been moved after the alleged accident, contrary to police procedure. Neither of them showed any biological traces such as might have been expected from hitting a body at speed. Nor were there any tire marks on Jeremiah Duggan's body or clothes.

"Light brown sand on Jeremiah's jeans was similar to that between the treads of the vehicles' tires. But there was no sand like this on that stretch of motorway. That suggested the student and the cars might have been somewhere else, and the body was then taken to the place where it was found.

"An expert who studied Jeremiah's head injuries thought they would have been caused by numerous repeated blows, rather than being struck by a vehicle. Lack of biological traces on the damaged vehicle windscreen suggested that rather than hitting a person, it could have been broken deliberately with a crowbar or some such implement so as to fake the appearance of an accident."

And here's another puzzle: According to the LaRouchians, Jeremiah left the Apels' apartment at upper left, on foot, at 5:15 to 5:25 AM. Based on this premise, he would have run 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) before being struck by the first of three cars at 6:00 AM. But the place where his body was found (second arrow from right) was only a few blocks from the office of LaRouche's EIR (arrow on right), where a high-pressure late night indoctrination session had been in progress. The Duggans believe, based on their research and sources, that Jeremiah was not at the Apels' apartment in the early morning hours but at the EIR office. Why would the LaRouchians want to lie to the police about this? One reason would be to direct attention away from the brutal nature of the indoctrination methods they use on young people. Another reason might be that they didn't want the police conducting a crime scene investigation at the EIR office using luminol to detect human blood.--DK

May 21: "Second inquest to probe far-right role in death." From the Belfast Telegraph, the leading daily in Northern Ireland, where people understand the dangers of political violence:

"Two judges at the High Court yesterday decided that there was enough evidence of 'foul play' to warrant a fresh inquest into how Jeremiah Duggan died on a dual carriageway in the German city of Wiesbaden in March 2003. His mother Erica believes the evidence points to her 22-year-old son being murdered and says new evidence has come to light since an initial inquest, which recorded an open verdict.

"Duggan was studying at the Sorbonne in Paris at the time of his death. He had travelled to Wiesbaden to attend what he thought was an anti-Iraq war conference. It was organised by the LaRouche movement, a far-right, strongly anti-Semitic group described by UK police as 'a political cult with sinister and dangerous connections.'"

Jacques Cheminade, the small-time Marshal Pétain who has long headed the LaRouche org in France. He was in charge of the recruitment team that persuaded Jeremiah Duggan to go to the 2003 German conference. The French LaRouchians who accompanied Jeremiah were sent home after his death and told to keep their mouths shut and not even talk about Jeremiah to each other. Under Cheminade's strict discipline, this has worked fairly far.

May 21: "Court victory for family as new inquest is ordered for Jeremiah Duggan." From the Hampstead & Highgate Express ("Ham&High"), a London newspaper that has stood by the Duggan family through thick and thin:

"The decision came after Ms Duggan's tireless one-woman-campaign from her attic in Golders Green.

"She has herself pored over the evidence of Jeremiah's death hiring experts to investigate what happened to him.

"And finally that evidence was handed over to the High Court for this hearing and considered pertinent by the courts."

Sebastien Drochon was one of the LaRouche activists who was with Jeremiah in Wiesbaden. He knows exactly what happened but is keeping his mouth shut while he climbs the organizational ladder in the LaRouche org in France. Says Mrs. Duggan, "he lied to me and he lies to himself."

May 21: "Erica Duggan hails decision to hold fresh inquest into son Jeremiah's death in Germany in 2003." Times-Series article by Alex Hayes, one of the many articles or broadcast news segments in important U.K. media in the past 24 hours. Excerpt:

"Mrs Duggan, who has fought for five years to get the case re-examined and received an apology from the Attorney General in January, is convinced [Jeremiah's] death was at the hands of a right-wing anti-semitic 'cult'...

"'The fact they are going to be taking a fresh look tells me the life of Jeremiah was valued and the manner in which he died will not just be forgotten or covered over, but we will find out what he went through.

"'For the first time there's going to be a coroner helping us to get answers to our questions.'

"Mrs Duggan said she hopes the police will also help with the investigations and put pressure on German and French authorities to help get answers about what happened.

"She added: 'The inquiry has to move quickly, we put out statements naming names and LaRouche is an international organisation. [This is a reference to the LaRouche org's practice of shuttling its members from country to country to avoid subpoenas or police questioning.--DK]

"'I do not just want another court drama and inquest, what I want is an investigation. We're hoping it can get us a measure of justice."

Erica Duggan and Hugo Duggan: hoping for a "measure of justice."

May 21: "Fascist cult 'may have killed Jewish student.'" Article from the U.K.'s daily Telegraph by Murray Wardrop: "The judge ruled that potentially crucial evidence was not available at the first inquest held in 2003...Quashing that inquest, Lord Justice Elias said: 'It is sufficient that fresh evidence here could alter the verdict, and in any event it is very much in the interests of justice that it should be carefully considered and analysed in a fresh inquest.'"

The article also cites the Lord Justice's statement that the road accident could have been "stage-managed" and the alleged statement by a member of the LaRouche group that "We have hunted him is right that he is dead, he is a traitor and a spy." And the Telegraph quotes the Duggan family lawyers' description of the LaRouche group as "a cult-like organisation which Mrs. Duggan now knows espouses a fascist and anti-Semitic ideology and is headed by Lyndon LaRouche, a convicted fraudster."

May 21: Big win for Jeremiah Duggan's parents! British High Court vacates 2003 inquest findings; grants new inquest; raises possibility of foul play and a "stage-managed" traffic accident; cites evidence of a "deliberate attempt to hunt down and kill" Jeremiah. The British media are all over the story, and here's excerpts from the BBC report (full text at link above):

"Two High Court judges quashed the findings of the first inquest, held in November 2003, which said that Mr Duggan died of fatal head injuries after running into the B455 motorway near Wiesbaden.

"They added that the new inquest must examine whether his death was the result of foul play after hearing that Mr Duggan, who was Jewish, had attended an event organised by the far-right LaRouche group...

"German police said Jeremiah's death was a 'suicide by means of a traffic accident' after running into the path of two oncoming cars. The 2003 inquest recorded a verdict of suicide...

"Lord Justice Elias, sitting with Mr Justice Aikenhead, said fresh evidence suggested that the death may have occurred elsewhere and the accident 'stage managed' to look like a road accident.

"It was alleged, said the judge, that one member of the LaRouche group had told his mother: 'We have hunted him is right that he is dead, he is a traitor and a spy.'

"In legal papers, submitted to the High Court, it is claimed that 'there may have been a deliberate attempt to hunt down and kill Jeremiah Duggan.'

"Evidence from five scientific experts suggested the injuries on the student's body and damage to the cars at the scene were inconsistent with a traffic accident."

Helga (the Holocaust is a "swindle") LaRouche, wife of Lyndon. She orchestrated the coverup, and she's going down--if former German members of the LaRouche org will finally come forward.

May 9: Molly Kronberg's request for certification of an interlocutory appeal is granted. Judge Trenga's order disqualifying John Markham as Mrs. Kronberg's attorney can now be taken to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for review at that court's discretion. In approving the May 3, 2010 certification order, Trenga quoted from 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b):

"When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order..."

And Trenga then comments:

"There is no reported judicial application of Rule 1.11(c) [the Virginia Rule of Professional Conduct that Trenga had interpreted as requiring Markham's disqualification] to facts comparable to those presented in this case....[The Court's] construction and application of Rule 1.11(c) is not the only reasonable construction and application of Rule 1.11(c) and the Court finds that there are substantial grounds for a difference of opinion. The Court also finds that the Court's Disqualification Order involves a controlling question of law and that an immediate appeal from the Order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." (Emphasis added.)

Predictably Trenga denied the portion of Mrs. Kronberg's motion that asked for reconsideration of the disqualification order (it was just a pro forma request anyway). If Trenga had granted it, the upshot merely would have been LaRouche et al. rather than Mrs. Kronberg asking for certification of an interlocutory appeal. (It would have been amusing to see LaRouche's attorneys suddenly reverse the arguments they made in their motion of opposition; see directly below).

On balance, Mrs. Kronberg won the interlocutory appeal certification and the stay, while LaRouche et al. won on something that was no longer really on the table. Point, game to Mrs. Kronberg...but set and match are a long way off.

May 9: LaRouche opposes Molly Kronberg's motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal. This motion in opposition (filed with the Court on April 30, 2010) expends several pages of rather elegant legal arguments on telling Judge Trenga he should not reconsider his disqualification order that removed Mrs. Kronberg's attorney from the case. However, when LaRouche et al.'s attorneys get to the substantive issue (plaintiff Kronberg's request for certification of an appeal of her attorney's disqualification to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals), no amount of elegance can cover up the weakness of the LaRouche team's assertions. And I was greatly amused to read their claim that no "exceptional circumstances" exist re the Markham disqualification (huh? you accept as your client a raving ranting lunatic space bat small-time Hitler convicted felon cult leader with a 40-year history of paranoid antics...and think that any circumstances in the case will not be "exceptional"?).

LaRouche et al.'s attorneys also claim there is "no substantial ground for disagreement concerning the law of disqualification." Yet they can't avoid mentioning that the judge had already described two of the three issues involved in the disqualification ruling as "less clear cut." They try to wiggle out of this by saying that these issues are only factual ones, not issues of law (as if, when unusual circumstances are involved and there is no clear precedent--which the judge would pretty much acknowledge in his subsequent order granting certification--you can make an easy distinction between the factual and the legal). Not surprisingly in this respect, they avoid any mention of the judge's assertion in his disqualification order of a "mental roadmap" standard.

Finally, I can't help mentioning how these ACLU John Adams Collective (er, Project) lawyers--who apparently are able to justify their work for America's premier anti-Semitic propagandist by imagining the lawsuit against him is part of an ongoing national security plot--get in their digs at the Republican Party-supporting Guantanamo-prison-boosting waterboard-torture-promoting Molly of LaRouche's delusions:

"Plaintiff merely complains that Markham's disqualification constitutes a hardship because she will have difficulty retaining replacement counsel. Plaintiff's argument lacks merit....Indeed, in Brooks, the court specifically addressed the same argument that Plaintiff makes here--lack of sufficient funds to pay an attorney--and stated:

"'[t]o the extent that the Plaintiffs, none of whom claim to be indigent, may not have sufficient funds to pay an attorney an advance retainer, they merely face the dilemma that all civil litigants face; whether the relief sought in a lawsuit is worth the cost of maintaining the lawsuit.'"

In a garden variety civil case, the above quote would not be objectionable. But in a case where the defendant is the infamous LaRouche, and where the plaintiff is a grieving widow whom LaRouche has been hounding in print (calling her a "witch," a "bitch" and worse) after having driven her husband to suicide....? Not a cool move, dudes. You've just furnished the centerpiece of a Justice for the Kronberg Family fundraising drive.

May 9: "Taking the Fifth" legal blog raises questions about Judge Trenga's order disqualifying Molly Kronberg's attorney. Noting that Kronberg attorney John Markham is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted LaRouche for fraud in the 1980s, veteran San Francisco lawyer C. Zadik Shapiro writes on his law blog (or "blawg," as they're called):

"Disqualifying Markham is unusual. Most cases involving the disqualification of a lawyer occur where she/he has represented both sides. For example, if Markham was representing LaRouche and as part of his Federal duties he had interviewed Kronberg or had read confidential reports of her interviews he should be disqualified because he could use confidential information obtained from Kronberg against her. But that is not the case. He has consistently represented parties opposing LaRouche and information obtained from Kronberg while he worked for the government will only be used to help her now. She could tell him the same information now that she did twenty years ago. There is no conflict of interest."

A LaRouche stooge named Howie Gibson replies, but is countered by an ex-LaRouchian using the handle "Lyn Marcus" (LaRouche's former political name when he was a Trotskyist). Then plaintiff Molly Kronberg weighs in. Interesting debate; too bad it didn't continue.

May 9: The Blog of Legal Times (BLT) reports on Judge Trenga's disqualification order. Reporter Mike Scarcella did a better job than I did in spotting the most salient passages from the filings re LaRouche et al.'s motion to disqualify Molly Kronberg's attorney.

For instance, he quotes a statement from the December 2009 motion claiming that Kronberg attorney John Markham, when he prosecuted LaRouche for fraud in the 1980s, "took advantage of prosecutorial powers" to develop relationships with witnesses and "deepen hostilities by others towards the defendants."

Are LaRouche team lawyers John McMahon, Jr. and Bernard DiMuro trying to resurrect the theory that LaRouche's prosecution and well-deserved 1988 conviction on conspiracy and mail fraud charges (scamming senior citizens out of their life savings) were the result of some government political vendatta? And that the current case over 21 years later (LaRouche being sued for defamation and harassment of a federal witness) is an extension of that vendetta?

This is the kind of legal conspiracism that Odin Anderson, LaRouche's long-time personal attorney, used to dutifully sign off on, and that Ramsey "Hooray for Ayatollah Khomeini" Clark, who unsuccessfully appealed LaRouche's felony conviction, would also scrawl his signature on (probably without even reading it as he rushed out the door to go schmooze with his latest Nazi war criminal client or attend a Workers World Party rally).

As to the source of the statement about Markham and the plot to "deepen hostilities," the usual suspect would be Barbara ("Babs") Boyd, LaRouche's nutty paralegal who just happens to be one of the two defendants represented by the law firm of DiMuroGinsberg in this case. (Mrs. Kronberg alleges that Boyd directly participated in LaRouche's defamation and harassment campaign.)

The Legal Times blogger also reports on a statement from Trenga's disqualification order which suggests to a discerning eye that the issue of Markham's alleged access to secret government information was predestined from the beginning to go to the Circuit Court of Appeals:

"The question of whether confidential information could be used to the plaintiff's advantage, Trenga said, is 'the most difficult because it is inherently predictive and requires the Court to engage in informed conjecture as to what information will become relevant as the case progresses.'"

The import of this sentence only became clear to me after I read Trenga's May 3, 2010 order granting Mrs. Kronberg's request for certification of an interlocutory appeal (see above).

April 25: Molly Kronberg's latest filings in her lawsuit against LaRouche. Here is Mrs. Kronberg's motion (with supporting documents) for reconsideration of, or for a certification allowing interlocutory appeal of, the order disqualifying her attorney, former AUSA John Markham, as well as for an interim stay. (To learn what an "interlocutory appeal" is, read here.)

Judge Trenga had ruled on April 9 that Markham should be disqualified because he might remember something from two decades ago (when he prosecuted defendant LaRouche for loan fraud) that could give Mrs. Kronberg an unfair advantage in her libel and harassment suit against LaRouche. In the motion for reconsideration, filed with the court on April 19, plaintiff Kronberg submits that the "circumstances required for such disqualification" had been "misread" by the Court:

"The Virginia ethics provision involved is written in the present tense, prohibiting the representation by a lawyer 'having information' learned from government service that the lawyer 'knows is confidential,' and which 'could be used to the material disadvantage of' his client's opponent. Those circumstances were not shown, with the defendants arguing that they 'don't know what they don't know.' This Court accepted the defendants' argument that disqualification could be based on the appearance of impropriety admittedly based upon the mere conceivability that Markham may at some point in the future have some remembrance that triggers recollection of some fact which is still among that small amount of facts about the 1988 LaRouche case not yet made public over the past 22 years, not known to defendants, related to the issues in this case, and usable to 'the material disadvantage of' Lyndon LaRouche."

And, the motion continues:

"[T]he ethics provision is not written with the invitation to apply what we submit is an overbroad use of 'appearance of impropriety' prophylactic when a Court is presented with undemonstrated, potential, but unlikely, future remembrance of things now 22 years in the past that may, if someday remembered by Markham, not be known to defendants and be materially disadvantageous to them. That sweeps too broad."

The menu here of Mrs. Kronberg's April 19 filings includes the brief filed in support of her motion, and a declaration by Mrs. Kronberg describing the difficulty she had experienced in finding a lawyer and the financial hardship that Markham's disqualification will impose on her--and stating that she might have to face LaRouche's team of high-priced lawyers pro se (representing herself without an attorney).

On the same day that Judge Trenga disqualified Markham from the case, he also issued an order denying LaRouche et al.'s motion to dismiss, thus opening the way for the case to move to trial. It would appear, however, that winning the right to take one's case to trial is not enough if, in the same breath, the judge takes away your capacity to present your case effectively.

April 11: Federal judge denies defendants' motion to dismiss in Kronberg v. LaRouche et al. This is an important victory for plaintiff Molly Kronberg: U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga appears to have agreed with her motion in opposition on all key points. Thus her defamation and harassment of a federal witness lawsuit can move towards trial.

Judge Trenga did grant LaRouche et al.'s motion to disqualify Mrs. Kronberg's co-counsel, former Assistant Attorney General John Markham, who had successfully prosecuted LaRouche for conspiracy and loan fraud 21 years ago. Mrs. Kronberg's legal team thinks, however, that they have an excellent chance of prevailing on this unusual point of law with the Circuit Court of Appeals.

We also understand that there are other former prosecutors who would love to have a crack at suing the infamous LaRouche, so even if the appeal of the Markham disqualification order fails, convicted felon LaRouche will not be any closer to extricating himself from his latest legal mess.


The Parents' Story

THURSDAY, 1st April, 9 PM

On Saturday, March 27th, 2010 it will be SEVEN YEARS since the death of Jeremiah Duggan in Wiesbaden, Germany.

On Thursday, April 1st at 9 pm, the Cutting Edge documentary LOST ABROAD will be shown for the first time – on the UK's Channel Four.

  • For seven long years Erica Duggan has tried to do the nearly impossible – carry out a criminal investigation the German police have shirked, and find out what happened to her son Jeremiah. Legal action in Germany over the years has floundered. There remains an obdurate unwillingness on the part of the legal authorities to investigate what really happened – even though compelling information raises the question of whether Jeremiah was subjected to a sustained mental or physical attack, or both.

  • This film deals with two families, the Duggans and the Hawkers, with two very different accounts but the same quest to find out what happened to their loved ones. We see examples of the inhumanity of those who block the parents' quest for justice. What is it like to be in a foreign state and trying to get a proper police investigation? What family would not want to know who and what killed their child?

    Jeremiah: A life taken.

  • "Lost Abroad" puts the anguish of these two families under the spotlight. We watch as Erica Duggan tries to piece together what happened to Jeremiah. We hope that people will open doors for such a mother but all we see are doors being shut in her face. Many questions are thrown up: Why do the authorities do nothing about investigating the dangers of the destructive Lyndon LaRouche political cult with which Jeremiah became embroiled? Perhaps this film may lack the courage to answer all the questions it raises, but it does present a shocking indictment of how the German authorities hide behind the law, use time-wasting techniques and accept the words of members of a known anti-Semitic group led by a convicted felon rather than the words of the victim's family and friends.

  • The British courts have already rejected the assumption of the German police that Jeremiah’s death was suicide – and yet the German authorities speak as if they have no legal duty to establish the circumstances surrounding this death. What is far worse is how for seven years the authorities refused to investigate fully and now they turn around and say it is too late. There should be no time limitations on justice.

  • Jeremiah was a talented young man with a promising future: whatever happened to destroy him happened in Germany. Now, after seven years, the Attorney General of the UK – Baroness Scotland – has written a letter to Erica Duggan apologizing for her office's failure to proceed more quickly to a second Inquest. But in Germany, despite compelling evidence presented over the years to the Wiesbaden prosecutor's office, the official response has been merely to hand over confidential files of witness statements to the very people in the LaRouche cult whom Erica Duggan wants investigated. Erica Duggan was not even informed when this confidential material was handed over to Helga Zepp-LaRouche, head of the LaRouche movement in Germany.

  • Even if "Lost Abroad" only raises half the questions in this case, we are encouraged to look deeper: Were the people involved in the circumstances of Jeremiah’s death acting as conspirators to protect the interests of a dangerous anti-Semitic and anti-British cult that compiles and disseminates intelligence reports under the guise of a "news agency," and supposedly has strong ties to military and other governmental agencies? Are these official connections real, or are they a fantasy expressed in exaggerated claims by the LaRouche organization (see their news outlet Executive Intelligence Review) that they have access to many high-level secrets? And will we ever know why the Manageress of the Schiller Institute was in possession of Jeremiah’s blood-stained passport (which was not found with the body) after his death?

  • "Lost Abroad" was produced in the teeth of very real concerns over possible legal action by the LaRouche movement, which has a history of trying to intimidate the media. Fortunately, LaRouche and his followers were unable to prevent the documentary from raising many important questions--questions that must and will be answered!


  • April 1: Major publicity for the Justice for Jeremiah campaign! This is no April Fool's joke, folks. LaRouche's attempt to intimidate the British media by repeating like a mantra the German legal system's "suicide" line and then relying on the media's fear of libel suits, has fallen flat. Here is a terrific article ("Did shadowy cult murder my boy?") from The Sun, a major U.K. daily.

    The article, by David Lowe, also publicizes the documentary Lost Abroad, which will be shown on Britain's Channel Four tonight and provides an in-depth look at the fight of Jeremiah Duggan's mother to find out what happened to her son.

    March 31: German authorities gave copies of Erica Duggan's confidential files to the LaRouche org and didn't even ask her permission. Writes one ex-LaRouche follower: "In the USA, this [would be] like the local sheriff handing over the complaints and detective work to the KKK and telling the family of the lynched that there is nothing else to say or do." And another former member writes, regarding the 2003 police determination that Jeremiah Duggan had killed himself: "The suicide ruling is not the result of investigation or police work or anything of the sort. It's the result of what the Labor Committee members in Wiesbaden told the police."

    Wiesbaden prosecutor Hartmut Ferse.

    March 30: Why won't the ex-leaders of the German LaRouche organization help the Duggan family? A former member from the United States writes: "[T]hey won't say what really happened because something bad DID happen, and whatever that bad thing was, it was sufficiently bad to terrify them into silence." Lyndon LaRouche Watch adds further comments.

    Ortrun Cramer, former manageress of LaRouche's Schiller Institute in Wiesbaden. She knows exactly what happened but her lips are sealed.

    March 30: "Parents hope son's death documentary will bring justice." From the Harrow Observer (London):

    "Police claimed [Jeremiah Duggan's death] was suicide but his family have been pressing for a full investigation after collating evidence that they say shows the young Jew was beaten to death by members of [an] alleged antiSemitic cult...

    "Saturday marked the seventh anniversary of his death and speaking to the Observer this week Mrs Duggan said: 'This time of year is obviously horrible for the whole family and I wouldn't have even been able to speak on Saturday.

    "'We hope the documentary will highlight how painstaking our attempts to seek answers have been and if it can help in our pursuit for justice then it will be well worthwhile.'"

    March 30: "Mystery of Dead Briton and the Rightwing Cult." This article by Jerome Taylor from The Independent (Feb.27, 2010) gives the clearest summary I've seen yet of the forensic evidence contradicting the German authorities' determination that Jeremiah Duggan committed suicide.

    "Paul Canning, a former Scotland Yard forensic officer, has studied the 79 photographs taken by German investigators of the crash site and Jerry's body. German police said he was hit by the Peugeot, then run over by the Volkswagen. But Mr Canning could not find evidence of tyre marks on the body. Nor was there any blood, flesh or hair on either car.

    "Mr Canning, who has investigated hundreds of road fatalities, believes this is 'inconceivable', reporting that he had never come across a high-speed collision of a car and pedestrian where no traces of blood are found. 'I do not believe the images depict how Jerry came to meet his premature death,' he added. 'It is possible that Jerry lost his life elsewhere, prior to being placed at the scene.'

    "Terence Merston, another former Met Police investigator who has studied the photographs, backs Mr Canning. 'Based on my years of experience in attending thousands of crime scenes as a forensic scene examiner, it is my opinion that the evidence at the scene points towards Jeremiah's death being extremely suspicious and not a road traffic accident,' he said. 'It is also my view that the damage to the Peugeot car has been deliberately caused.'

    "But how did Jerry sustain the head injuries that killed him? A post-mortem by a British pathologist, Dr David Shove, discovered defence wounds on Jerry's arms as well as blood in his lungs and stomach. At the speed that witnesses say he was struck, he would have been killed instantly, but the blood in his lungs and stomach (caused by breathing in and swallowing after a major haemorrhage) suggest he was alive for some time, after intense trauma."

    Feb. 15: "Kronberg as Judas in the mind of Lyndon LaRouche." A no-holds-barred critique of LaRouche's reality-inversion mind control tactics and how he uses them to act out his Hitler fantasies in a "safe" way. And how he always manages to blame the victim: "After driving Ken Kronberg (among the most loyal of his followers) to suicide--that is, after betraying Kronberg in the most profound way possible--LaRouche concocted a self-serving narrative in which it was Kronberg who betrayed...LaRouche!"

    Feb. 15: LaRouche ruminates over the alleged treachery of Ken Kronberg. This press release--which talks about those "who chose a Judas-like apostasy, and who may have also chosen to hang themselves in one fashion or another" (i.e., Kronberg)--is comparable to the actions of an enraged bigot who continues to kick his victim's body when the victim is already dead. It shows that LaRouche's hounding of Kronberg, which resulted in the Virginia businessman and longtime LaRouche follower committing suicide, was not just a case of ordinary cult-leader bullying but was motivated by LaRouche's hatred of Kronberg as a Jew.

    Feb. 2: Brother of a top European LaRouche aide says his sibling knows what happened to Jeremiah Duggan and should step forward and tell the world. This statement, posted on Factnet, says that those who want to crack this case should put pressure on Jonathan Tennenbaum, a LaRouche follower for over 30 years, who was assigned to meet with Jeremiah's parents shortly after their son's death with the aim of learning their intentions and trying to allay their suspicions. Jonathan's brother, Peter, who knows the cult well although never a member, doesn't think Jonathan was directly involved in Jeremiah's death, but that Jonathan's high position in the org and his assignment to a key damage-control task make it almost certain that he is privy to what happened.

    Jonathan Tennenbaum.

    "Jonathan can either step up and be a man for the first time in his life," the brother writes, "or he can continue to protect Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr." Peter uses far harsher language about his brother elsewhere in the posting, and some readers may be shocked. But let me say that I've heard very similar language over the years from relatives of cult members (and relatives of drug addicts) when the problem individual was making life hell for his or her parents and siblings. Family members can't be expected to act like saints forever, although I'm sure that cult leaders such as LaRouche would like them to do so.

    Feb. 1: "Shameful, shameful..." Factnet's "eaglebeak" skewers LaRouche's Jan. 28 statement on the Duggan case. "In this brief release, LaRouche manages to hurl more vitriol at Jeremiah Duggan and his mother than normal people could credit....LaRouche is terrified that Erica Duggan's recent success in court in Britain will reopen the case of Jeremiah's death--something which could have vast consequences for LaRouche and his organization."

    Feb. 1: Jeremiah Duggan's mother blasts LaRouche for his latest defiling of her son's memory. The people who run Google News (which has been giving LaRouche's propaganda outlets top billing on the Duggan inquest story) should read this statement. Maybe then they'll begin to comprehend the sleaziness and unreliability of Executive Intelligence Review and other LaRouche publications and websites, which Google News has treated--for too long--as legitimate news outlets.

    Feb. 1: Ex-follower explains LaRouche's Jan. 28 lies and slurs about Jeremiah Duggan within the context of the cult's long history of abuse and hate. "What happened as the years went by was something which stabbed me in the heart over and over. I found that whatever the LC was doing beyond raising money was creating a very hard-core cultism of cold-blooded hatred of what was not us....You did not [simply] disagree with the names [vilified] in our publications, you had to hate them for their role in killing humanity."

    A copy of this powerful statement by Factnet's "xlcr4life" should be placed in the hands of every young person who shows signs of coming under the influence of the LaRouche Youth Movement.

    Jan. 29: A LaRouche press release now ranks on Google News as the number one news source re the U.K. Attorney General's Duggan inquest decision. The AG's "fiat" for a new inquest is an important news story being covered by numerous newspapers and other media outlets in Britain. Responsible newspapers with substantial circulations. But what comes first on Google News as of 10:30 PM, Jan. 28--if you type in "Jeremiah Duggan"--is a scurrilous rant signed by LaRouche.

    In his usual elliptical fashion, Der Abscheulicher says that the "British circles" urging an investigation of the "alleged non-suicide of Jeremiah Duggan...have failed to disclose crucially relevant facts respecting the subject's...relevant mental health history since childhood until his suicide in the vicinity of Wiesbaden, Germany."

    LaRouche says that these "British circles" (meaning the politicians and financiers who supposedly are using the Duggan family as their pawns) have "curiously failed to take into account statements reportedly made by Jeremiah himself shortly before his suicide, to the effect that he was having difficulty in securing some medication essential to his mental stability." LaRouche asks for a probe of "such relevant facts as [Jeremiah's] reported statements regarding past emotional disturbances dating from his childhood, and indicating a role of the London Tavistock Clinic at some point in this case."

    Now the Tavistock Clinic theory is part of the cover story that Helga LaRouche and other leaders of the German LaRouche movement concocted at their headquarters in Wiesbaden within hours of Jeremiah's death (that he was a British/Tavistock agent). And the allegation that he was on drugs comes from cult members who were part of the coverup (note how LaRouche refers to their "reported statements" as "relevant facts").

    In the seven years since then, the LaRouche org, which runs a private political intelligence operation worldwide on a multimillion dollar budget, has been unable to come up with any real evidence that Jeremiah was suffering from mental illness or was on drugs or had any ongoing relationship to the Tavistock clinic (he did go there with his parents for family counseling when he was a young child).

    Ever since the middle 1970s, followers of LaRouche have maintained that Tavistock, a respected research and mental health facility in London, is an evil British intelligence brainwashing center that incessantly plots against their leader. When Jeremiah revealed to his LaRouchian "recruiters"--during a discussion in which their views on Tavistock came up--that he had once gone there and that it was not the sinister place they fancied it to be, he may have triggered their paranoia and sealed his own fate.

    When I read LaRouche's cynical statements demeaning the memory of Jeremiah Duggan (in order to evade responsibility for the 22-year-old Jewish university student's death), I wonder: Does LaRouche have any sense of shame? And I also wonder whether the people who run Google News are capable of feeling any shame over how--for years--they've treated LaRouche as a legitimate journalist and publisher, thus collaborating, in effect, in the lies and bigotry of this small-time Hitler, and facilitating his ability to recruit naive young people.

    Statue of Freud at the Tavistock Clinic. LaRouche appears to hate (and fear, really fear) "Jewish" psychiatry.

    Jan. 28: "Leigh Day wins AG's backing for new inquest into Jeremiah Duggan's suspicious death." This press release from Jeremiah's mother's solicitors (dated Jan. 21) hails Baroness Scotland's support for a new inquest as a "groundbreaking development" that allows Erica Duggan to "make an application to the High Court for a fresh inquest and move one step closer toward obtaining a just and proper public investigation...."

    Jan. 28: The U.K. Attorney General's letter of apology to Mrs. Duggan. Here it is, addressed to Erica at the office of her solicitors, Leigh Day & Co., and received by them on Jan. 20. It is signed personally by the AG, and clearly states that she believes there is an "unanswered question" regarding how Jeremiah died.

    And the news keeps spreading...

    Jan. 28: LaRouche will gnash his teeth over Molly Kronberg's latest filing (if he has the attention span to read it). Here's what I regard as the key passage of the Kronberg legal team's Jan. 13 response to defendants' supplemental brief:

    "The applicable wording under Rule 1.11(c) disqualifies a lawyer 'having confidential information that the lawyer knows is confidential government information about a a matter in which the information could be used to the material disadvantage of that person'...Try as they might, defendants, with their extensive knowlege of the 1988 [LaRouche prosecution]--even down to having retained in the present case the lead defense counsel from that 1988 case--cannot come up with any specific matter or information, which, 21 years later, is still both confidential and known to Markham and which they can credibly argue Markham could use to their material disadvantage."

    Maybe your problem, Mr. Convicted Felon LaRouche, is that in the present case John Markham is not prosecuting (or defending) you or your associates for scamming old ladies; he's representing a private client who is suing you in the civil division of federal court for libelling and harassing her. What you did as a scam artist in the 1980s--and whether the CIA "hung you out to dry" in your 1988 trial (your fantasy, not mine)--is not at issue in this entirely separate case filed 21 years later.

    Jan. 28: LaRouche and his minions are desperate to get Markham off the case. Here's Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Support of Their Joint Motion to Disqualify Former AUSA Markham (filed Jan. 11, 2010). It focuses on trying to prove that Markham is in violation of Virginia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.11(c). Apparently this is a last-minute response to Markham's success in obtaining on Jan. 7 a determination from the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia that his representation of Molly Kronberg is not prohibited pursuant to federal statute or regulation.

    This latest filing by the LaRouche camp is basically a data dump from Lexis describing cases that are only marginally, if at all, related to the case at issue. If I were the judge's law clerk, I'd be real annoyed (at LaRouche, not at my boss) for having to plough through it all.

    Jan. 28: "A huge first step" says London's Ham & High News. "Last Thursday, Ms. Duggan found that people were finally starting to listen. After a long legal battle, the Attorney General Baroness Scotland admitted her department was wrong in denying Ms. Duggan permission to make a court bid for a new inquest. It is a huge first step for the reinvestigation of Jeremiah's death and his mother's campaign, run from a paper-stacked attic in his old home in Golders Green."

    Jan. 28: U.K. Attorney General apologizes to Mrs. Duggan. As quoted in this Times Series (London suburban news chain) article, Baroness Scotland sent a letter to Jeremiah Duggan's mother, stating:

    "I regret your application was not properly dealt with when it was first submitted and the delays and angst the process to remedy those failings has caused you and your family.

    "I have granted my fiat because I am of the view on reconsidering your application that there is an unanswered question from the inquest into Jeremiah's death as to whether the fatal injuries he suffered are in fact attributable to a car accident."

    Jan. 25: The BBC on the Jeremiah Duggan case. Report quotes the U.K. Attorney General on the "unanswered question" that warrants a new inquest, and summarizes the history of the case, including the 2003 coroner's verdict--that Jeremiah was in "a state of terror" when he died and that a finding of suicide was "impossible." Also notes the findings of the coroner's pathologist that Jeremiah's injuries were consistent with being beaten around the head.

    And here's the UKPA (United Kingdom Press Association) article as well as the coverage by ITV's London Regional News (video only viewable within the UK).

    Erica Duggan, Jeremiah's mother, wrote the following to LaRouche Watch: "The local newspapers ALL OVER the country are featuring the account of the fate of Jeremiah and the Attorney General's decision. Also the Jewish newspapers next week."

    Peter Tennenbaum, the brother of a longtime LaRouche devotee, wrote on the Factnet anti-LaRouche message board: "Praise The Lord (and the work of all good people) for this tremendous news. May The Light finally shine."

    And former LaRouche follower "xlcr4life" also wrote on Factnet: "The cult will cut the living standards of members even further as they pump money into lawyers for the Molly Kronberg case and the Duggan inquiry. Lyn should be due for another eruption of bile and lunacy, so keep that LPAC URL handy for the fun next week."

    Jan. 25: Why does Google News treat LaRouche's Jew-hating propaganda rag as a legitimate news outlet? When I decided to check yesterday on how the media was covering the British Attorney General's decision in favor of a new inquest into Jeremiah Duggan's death, the second item that popped up on Google News was an article from Executive Intelligence Review. So, hate rags are now news organizations? Read what my blog says about this...

    Jan. 21: "New Inquest for Duggan death." This article from today's Jewish Chronicle (a U.K. paper) quotes the British Attorney General, Baroness Scotland: "I am of the view...that there is an unanswered question from the [2003] inquest into Jeremiah's death as to whether the fatal injuries he suffered are in fact attributable to a car accident."

    Baroness Scotland.

    Jan. 21: Why are the German authorities blocking any investigation of Jeremiah Duggan's death? And what do certain ex-LaRouchians know? Various pieces of evidence suggest that the LaRouche org was for years an asset (albeit not an easily controllable one) of German security and police agencies. High-level ex-LaRouchians have all manifested a mysterious loss of memory on this topic, but we include here some pictures and comments to jog their memories.

    Jan. 21: Major breakthrough for the Justice for Jeremiah campaign! The Duggan family attorneys received a letter yesterday from the U.K. Attorney General's Office saying that Baroness Scotland, the Laborite AG, "has reconsidered the application made by you on behalf of the deceased's mother, Mrs. Erica Duggan, and has agreed to grant her fiat to proceedings being commenced...The Attorney General has also written personally to Mrs. Duggan."

    And the fiat, signed by the AG, states: "I hereby authorise ERICA DUGGAN to make an application to the High Court of Justice...quashing the inquisition in respect of JEREMIAH JOSEPH DUGGAN take before DR. W.F.G. DOLMAN, one of Her Majesty's Coroners...on 8 NOVEMBER 2003 and directing another inquest to be held touching the death of the said JEREMIAH JOSEPH DUGGAN.

    Mrs. Duggan sent LaRouche Watch the two documents along with the following statement:

    "We submitted our compelling evidence and now at long last it will be clear to the German authorities that the British authorities want a full investigation of the circumstances of the death of Jeremiah...We now have the right to go to the High Court and apply for a fresh inquest and hope that depending on our appeal being successful we will at long last have the assistance of our own British police in getting answers to the many unanswered questions."

    Mrs. Duggan has fought long and hard for this victory--with zero help from the high-level former LaRouchians in Germany and the United States who could have offered vital information, but didn't. It's time for Uwe Friesecke, Anno Hellenbroich, Ortrun Cramer and others who know all about the provenance of the defensive wounds on Jeremiah's body and how he really died, to come forward and reveal these facts. It's also time for these former German LaRouche aides--and certain American ex-leaders of the movement who spent lengthy periods in Germany--to reveal the truth about the LaRouche org's long history as a fascist auxiliary for German and other NATO security services (the probable reason that the Wiesbaden police, the prosecutors in the state of Hesse, and the German federal police have been so adamant about not investigating the LaRouche org's role in Jeremiah's death).

    Finally, it's time that the low-level former LaRouche followers who profess sympathy for Mrs. Duggan's plight, but most of whom have done nothing substantial to help her, start putting pressure on the former high level members and security staffers, instead of continuing to be in awe of them and behaving as their emotional peons (or, re the former security staffers, continuing to be in fear of their small-time Tony Soprano act). If the defectors from LaRouche's European and American inner ring continue to refuse to tell what they know--all of what they know--then their own personal crimes, immoral acts and tyrannical treatment of underlings when they were in the LaRouche movement should be exposed to the world by those who were there, saw it and suffered from it.

    Why should the Duggan family have to endure years more of justice delayed when the members of the ex-LaRouchian community have it within their power--the power of their guilty knowledge--to bring the case to a speedy and successful conclusion?

    Jan. 10: Justice Department determines that Markham's representation of Molly Kronberg does not violate federal law or regulations. Last fall, attorney John Markham--currently the target of a disqualification motion filed by the defendants in Kronberg v. LaRouche et al.--contacted the U.S. Attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia for its opinion of the propriety of his serving as Mrs. Kronberg's lawyer in light of his role--as a former assistant U.S. attorney--in the 1988 criminal prosecutions of LaRouche and several of LaRouche's associates.

    Markham received a reply from U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride (E.D. Va.) signed by AUSA Robert K. Coulter on Jan. 7--just in time for the court hearing the next day on LaRouche's motions to disqualify Markham and dismiss the case. Here's the key passage:

    "Based on the facts as presented and the applicable law, the Executive Office of U.S. Attorney's General Counsel's Office has determined that your representation of Ms. Kronberg is not prohibited pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 207 and 5 C.F.R. § 2637.201."

    The letter did not offer an opinion on whether Markham's representation of Mrs. Kronberg conflicts with Virginia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.11, stating merely that this "constitutes an issue properly to be considered by the Virginia State Bar Association."

    The judge could still rule in favor of the defendants, and even if he doesn't they could appeal the decision. But somehow I don't think that Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. aka Der Abscheulicher is in a very good mood this weekend (but when is he ever in a good mood nowadays?).

    Jan. 7: LaRouche and his co-defendants still trying to deny Molly Kronberg the counsel of her choice. Here's the "Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Joint Motion to Disqualify Former AUSA Markham," filed in federal court (Alexandria, Va.) on Dec. 31. The heart of this smoke and mirrors argument is as follows:

    "Markham's representation of Kronberg in this case violates Rule 1.11(b) because Kronberg's present federal claim for witness retaliation under 42 U.S.C. §1985(2) is predicated upon, and involves similar facts and parties, as the Alexandria and Boston Prosecutions in which Markham participated 'personally and substantively' as an AUSA. Kronberg's testimony as a witness in the Alexandria Prosecution is the linchpin of her federal claim that Defendants' defamed her in retaliation for that testimony. Indeed, in opposing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss her section 1985(2) claim as being insufficiently plausible under Iqbal, Kronberg has argued that there is a clear connection between her testimony as a witness in the Alexandria Prosecution and the Defendants' alleged defamatory statements. Hence, it is Kronberg, herself, who has forged the connecting link between the two cases: her present federal court action and the prior federal court proceedings in which she testified."

    Huh? Mrs. Kronberg's case is not "predicated upon" the 1988 criminal prosecutions of LaRouche for mail and credit card fraud. Mrs. Kronberg's civil suit is concerned with an entirely different matter--cruel acts of libel and personal harassment beginning two decades later in 2008. The only "connecting link" is a circumstantial one forged by LaRouche himself when he recklessly alleged (among other things) that Mrs. Kronberg had committed perjury (an act that carries felony penalties) as a witness at the second of his 1988 trials, thus supposedly becoming the primary cause of his (and six of his followers') conviction and incarceration. LaRouche made this allegation only after Mrs. Kronberg publicly denounced him in 2007 and blamed him for driving her husband to suicide. Before that date, she was never the target of perjury allegations from LaRouche, any of LaRouche's 1988 co-defendants, or anyone else in the LaRouche organization. (What LaRouche apparently has done in his typical politically paranoid fashion is to decide that Mrs. Kronberg is now an enemy "agent" and thus she must always have been an enemy agent and therefore she must have perjured herself in his 1988 trial--and should be punished for it.)

    Defendants would like the judge to believe that Mrs. Kronberg's suit and the federal government's 1988 case against LaRouche involve "similar facts" to a significant degree and that Mrs. Kronberg's case will somehow turn into a retrial of the issues for which LaRouche was sent to prison. But why should those issues even arise? The trial record shows that Mrs. Kronberg's testimony was of a noncontroversial nature and had little if anything to do with LaRouche's conviction. The real issue is whether or not LaRouche has any evidence to back up his allegation that Mrs. Kronberg lied on the witness stand. He has presented no such evidence (unless one takes seriously his mystical "hypothesis of the higher hypothesis" deductions based on his demented conspiracy theories), and indeed no such evidence exists.

    If this case goes to trial, it will be determined not by delving into the financial crimes for which LaRouche was convicted in 1988, but simply by requiring LaRouche to present the slightest shred of evidence that Mrs. Kronberg perjured herself at his trial.

    And then there's the harassment issue--LaRouche causing his followers to circulate literature around the town of Leesburg, Virginia, where Mrs. Kronberg lives, alleging that she drove her husband to suicide in 2007 and that she's a "witch" and a "bitch." I defy LaRouche to show how Mrs. Kronberg's complaint re this recent reprehensible behavior (which his attorneys sneeringly dismiss as a "garden variety" defamation claim) is predicated at all upon the issues at trial in 1988.

    Leesburg, Va. If you were a grieving widow in this town--where everyone knows everyone else--how would you like to have a malicious clique going around telling your neighbors that you drove your husband to suicide?

    Given the bind that LaRouche has placed himself in by failing to curb his tongue and repress his violent emotions, it is no wonder that he and his co-defendants are grasping at straws--by attempting to make Mrs. Kronberg's attorney the issue and get him removed from the case at all costs.

    Earlier filings re the motion to disqualify John Markham can be read here.

    Jan. 6: Facing the truth about one's years in the LaRouche cult. Factnet posting by "xlcr4life" explaining how hard it is to admit "that you spent good years in pure hate of people all the time, while exploiting other members based on getting in good with Lyn or someone above you."

    Dec. 29: The warm fuzzy Christmas spirit of Lyndon LaRouche. A former LaRouche follower muses during the Holiday Season over the LaRouche cult's history of anti-Semitism and the "cheap parlor tricks" by which Der Abscheulicher controls his followers.

    Dec. 26: Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest lawyer? Lyndon LaRouche's latest tactic in Kronberg v. LaRouche et al. is to attempt to disqualify Molly Kronberg's attorney, former federal prosecutor John Markham. The link here takes you to (a) LaRouche and his co-defendants' memorandum in support of the motion to disqualify, along with a wacko declaration by co-defendant Barbara Boyd; (b) the reply by Mrs. Kronberg's legal team, supported by the declarations of Markham, Mrs. Kronberg, Criton Zoakos and Mike Minnicino; (c) the transcript of Mrs. Kronberg's testimony in LaRouche's 1988 trial for loan fraud; and (d) commentary by the Usual Suspect at Lyndon LaRouche Watch.

    Dec. 22: Merry Christmas from Lyndon LaRouche Watch. "T'was the night before Christmas and all through Lyn's house, not a creature was stirring..." However, that only applied to creatures inside the house...

    Dec. 10: Press release on forensic evidence re Jeremiah Duggan's death. I sent a version of this Dec. 9 release to my personal email list. One of the people on my list kindly posted it on Factnet but expressed skepticism about the contents. The redoubtable "xlcr4life," a Factnet regular, replied to the skeptic as follows:

    "I read the earlier posted report from the autopsy of Jeremiah. There's at least three issues which I find disturbing.

    "First, how blood got on Jeremiah's passport. There may be an explanation as to how the LC [LaRouche's Labor Committee] had his passport; however, Jeremiah's blood on the document is a big problem. I cannot see how I would get blood on my passport or give it up to anyone as directed by the issuing agency.

    "Second, the defensive wounds on the forearms was not known by me in the early years of this case. Having worked in a trauma ER, I am familiar with people being admitted with blunt force trauma on their radius/ulna in protecting themselves from baseball bat attacks, hatchets, chairs and other objects. Strong kicks from someone trained to do so can also do the same damage.

    "Third, blood in the stomach after swallowing is also something new which was not known to me back then as well.

    "I can see plenty of different events taking place which can include or exclude the LC on a limited, but not complete, basis. Where I live I have read in the press about auto accidents where the driver of a crashed car is later found to be shot. The victim of a hit and run was beaten elsewhere, left on a road where an unsuspecting driver(s) ran over the body a few times. Crime victims who were pushed in front of moving vehicles in the course of robbery. People who were in mental or physical shock who ran into traffic. The point is that the family is not going to accept the German version and there are plenty of examples of where initial police reports which were done at the time later had far more evidence uncovered. It was not a conspiracy by the initial officers, but a condensed report which left too many questions unanswered. I cannot be sure here of what took place that night.

    "The case I am very familiar with is from Howard Beach, NY in the 1980s where several whites began fighting with three blacks who were in their neighborhood and chased one of them to his death on the Expressway [where] he was run over. The defense was that since they did not hit the victim, they are not guilty. The courts found that since the reason the victim was on the highway in the late night was to run for his life away from the pursuing mob, then they are to blame.

    "There are far too many questions and very few answers with the LC being in the middle."

    Dec. 9: The human toll of Newman and Fulani's cult. Here's an April 12, 2009 posting at The Cahokian recalling the late gay activist Steve Rose, who became HIV positive in the 1980s and ended up in Newman and Fulani's New Alliance Party before dying of AIDS in the early 1990s.

    "The last time I saw Steve was on a street corner. Although a few years before he made numerous sharp and stingingly incisive polemical attacks against the New Alliance Party and their ilk, by then he was defeated. Facing personal demoralization along with the challenges of fighting HIV Steve joined the NAP. When I saw him on that corner telling me of his new allegiance to NAP I saw such despair behind his eyes belying the wooden and rote recitation of how NAP had helped him to see that his problems were not his own, rather the burden of oppression and capitalism. It was heartbreaking to see him so broken, so surrendered to the easy answers of a cult that could do his thinking for him. I grieve that he spent his last years in such company. While brash and not always sympathetic, Steve was a fighter and a real hero of gay liberation. The cult that parasitically attached itself to him, joining the HIV in sucking out his life force, cannot now go unopposed."

    Steve Rose (holding sign) shortly after he joined the NAP.

    The Cahokian's account rings true. Several former members of the NAP (and of the underground "International Workers Party"--the cadre org that controlled the NAP and today controls the Bloomberg-financed New York City Independence Party) have described to me in interviews how Newman & Co. often ruthlessly exploited people with serious illnesses, by getting them into social therapy sessions and persuading them that Revolutionary Struggle was the answer to their trauma and despair. The first experiments were with people suffering from cancer back in the 1970s. Next came AIDS patients, and gays haunted by the fear of AIDS or the death of close friends.

    The late activist Robert Cohen, after breaking with the Newmanites, wrote a long letter to the New York Amsterdam News (1993) about the cult's attempts to parasite off the gay and lesbian community and how AIDS had become just another fundraising gimmick for Fred Newman.

    "When Newman, a self-described 'benevolent despot,' sent his followers (myself included) out to the streets of Greenwich Village to raise money in support of the AIDS Bill of Rights (ABOR), it soon became apparent that the measure was a sham.

    "There was never any serious attempt on the part of the NAP (IWP, etc.) to gather enough legislative support with which to pass the bill (just ask any of the representatives on Capitol Hill about the ABOR). In fact, the proposal (actually a rough draft which was never assigned a bill number), was simply a tactic designed to elicit an emphatic response so as to solicit money from a desperate community which was, and remains, under siege from AIDS.

    "I will never forget the despair of the gay community, and the initial hope and faith that they had in us when we first began to raise money through the ABOR scam.

    "It was not uncommon those days to work an 8-hour fundraising shift on Bleeker Street or Sheridan Square and then walk away with one or two thousand dollars donated by people affected by, concerned about, or who had AIDS.

    "I remember going to the home of Noel Levert (a brethren NAPer who has since died of AIDS), to count the money, and how proud we were to finally have found a way to gather support (i.e., big bucks) from our community.

    The late Noel Levert, also duped and exploited by the Newmanites.

    "After counting the money, we would promptly hand it over to Jim Mangia (Newman's most useful and skilled operative in the gay community). But, the money was ultimately used to pay for anything that Newman ordained (i.e., rent for NAP/IWP offices, salaries, and/or used in ways that only Newman will know), and definitely not for the ABOR as we were led to believe."

    And back to Steve Rose: IWP/NAP defector Marina J. Ortiz described in a 1993 New York Planet series on the cult's inner workings how it managed to make use of Rose even while he was dying. The cult had concocted a scheme to report inflated expenditures on Fulani's 1992 Presidential campaign to the Federal Election Commission, thus enabling the Fulani campaign committee to obtain matching funds to which it was not really entitled.

    "Fred Newman Productions, Inc., New Alliance Productions, Inc., Ilene Advertising, Castillo Communications, and other NAP subsidiaries, for example, billed the campaign almost one million dollars for advertising, public relations and consultation services. However, aside from, perhaps, one or two salaried employees (who averaged $300 a week), much of the actual labor provided by these businesses was borne by unpaid 'volunteers.'

    "Descriptions of services rendered are equally dubious. Automated Business Services, for example, was paid thousands of dollars for 'payroll and accounting services,' while the owner himself was then listed under a 'clerical services' heading, as were dozens of other supporters--including the late Steve Rose (by then an AIDS-stricken invalid). Quite a few, however...maintain that they never received any money from the campaign."

    In other words, once Rose was too sick to work for the cult on the streets or in an office, Newman and Fulani found a way to squeeze a last dribble of profit out of him--as a name on a phantom payroll.

    You can read Cohen's full letter here and the full Ortiz series here. The Cahokian posted a second piece (Nov. 26, 2009) on Steve Rose here which is mostly personal reminiscence but also includes comments on "social therapy." The photos of Rose and Levert above come from's "In Memory of People Exploited by the IWP" collection.

    Dec. 4: The empire strikes back (feebly). Here is the reply by LaRouche and his co-defendants (filed with the court on Nov. 17) to Molly Kronberg's memorandum opposing their motion to dismiss. If portions of LaRouche's initial Oct. 26 pleading in this case were rather odd, these follow-up arguments are downright ludicrous. For instance:

    Plaintiff's Complaint is utterly devoid of specific factual allegations as to the time, place, and manner of any purported concerted activity of the Defendants in conspiring to injure her. To the extent that any of the writings described by Plaintiff in her Complaint may be defamatory, Plaintiff may have a common-law claim for defamation. Nonetheless, she should not be allowed to transform a state law defamation claim into a multi-defendant, wide ranging civil rights conspiracy under Section 1985(2). Because Plaintiff's Complaint fails to set forth the factual requisites of a Section 1985 conspiracy claim, but merely has strung together a series of bare, conclusory allegations, Plaintiff's Section 1985(2) conspiracy claim is fatally flawed....

    Well now, what about those pesky "specific factual allegations" regarding published statements by LaRouche that Molly Kronberg is a "witch" and a "bitch," that she committed the felony crime of perjury, and that she drove her husband to suicide? Who uttered or wrote those statements? Wasn't it Defendant Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.? And who published one or more of the statements--wasn't it defendant LaRouche's Morning Briefing newsletter on April 26, 2009? Wasn't it defendant LaRouchePAC's website on February 26, 2009 and March 25, 2009? Wasn't it Defendant EIR News Service's website on March 6, 2009 and April 10, 2009? Are we to believe that these specific instances of defamation and harassment occurred spontaneously, by osmosis, without LaRouche transmitting the statements in some fashion to his "philosophical co-thinkers" at the Morning Briefings newsletter staff and at LaRouchePAC and EIR?

    And note defendants' admission that some of the statements described by Plaintiff "may be defamatory" and that "Plaintiff may have a common-law claim for defamation." This is just legal tactics, and a normal client would recognize it as such. Yet LaRouche is not a normal client--he's a malignant narcissist/egomaniac who cannot tolerate even the barest suggestion that he has ever, ever made a mistake. I suspect that he went berserk over this conciliatory remark and took out his rage on his organization's in-house paralegals, threatening to send them back to the telephone fundraising boiler room (the LaRouchian version of Hell).

    Defendants' reply also takes a new stab at evoking the intracorporate conspiracy immunity doctrine (wholly intracorporate conduct does not provide an actionable conspiracy claim since the officers, employees, etc. of the corporation are acting merely as its agents). Plaintiff's attorneys, in their Nov. 9 memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss, pretty thoroughly demolished the idea that this doctrine is applicable to Kronberg vs. LaRouche, but defendants now offer a truly bizarre twist:

    [I]f this Court were to assume that the Defendants were acting in concert because they all supported and promoted LaRouche's political views, as Plaintiff contends, then they also should share a unity of interest under the corporate immunity doctrine.

    Huh? By this reasoning, a group of Klansmen--if they lynched someone and were then sued for violating the victim's civil rights--could claim, oh, we all share a common white supremacist philosophy and activist commitment and, look here, we purchased the rope as a business expense; therefore we should be immune from conspiracy charges.

    And here's one more example of Lyndon's legal lunacy:

    It can not be enough that the alleged libelous statements refer to Plaintiff's testimony in the LaRouche trial, although this apparently is Plaintiff's view....That is because the statutory language specifically provides that the alleged wrongful actions of the defendant in a Section 1985(2) action must have been taken to injure the plaintiff "on account of his having...testified" in any court in the United States [actually the statute says any court of the United States, i.e., any Federal court--DK]. It is not sufficient that a plaintiff merely demonstrate that the alleged wrongful conduct, in this case libel per se, refers to the witness's testimony. Simply because the author of a purported libelous statement comments upon the testimony of a trial witness does not mean that the statement was made with the motive and intent to injure the witness for having testified in court, as is required in order to set forth a claim under Section 1985(2).

    As a journalist, I've read my share of legal pleadings over the years, but this is the first time I've ever seen defendants end up arguing the plaintiff's case rather than their own. LaRouche and his co-defendants set forth the requirements that plaintiff Kronberg would have to meet under Section 1985(2) without being aware, apparently, that these requirements fit their own behavior to a T. Indeed, plaintiff Kronberg's memorandum had already provided several examples of the linkage between the campaign of defamation against Mrs. Kronberg and LaRouche's belated but real rage over her 1988 testimony. For instance, here's the statement from LaRouche that was published in the April 26, 2009 Morning Briefing and distributed to his followers worldwide:

    ...Molly has been, as we all knew--those of us who knew anything about this, knew that none of us would have gone to prison, not in that trial, not in Alexandria, except for Molly....Molly gave the false testimony without which the trial could not have occurred in Alexandria....

    When this woman...sent a bunch of us to prison directly and deliberately...She lied! It was only her lies that got us imprisoned. If she hadn't had that lie, nobody would have gone to prison in that trial.

    Now, you've got a situation, where he [Ken Kronberg, Molly Kronberg's husband] kills himself, because he was living with that witch: Who's been evil all along! Her behavior had never been good. She's never been honest. And then, he commits suicide, and these bums try to blame me for it! He was driven--there was no reason for the suicide, there was no excuse for it. But there's an understanding of the oppression that he felt by being married to that bitch....

    If any new recruits to the LaRouche Youth Movement are reading this web page on the sly, I hope they'll think long and hard about the above, and consider that maybe, just maybe, the group they've joined with such idealistic motives is in fact an insane cult. If they begin to suspect this is possible, their next step should be to call their parents, ask for a bus ticket home, and then spend some time researching the history of the LaRouchians in a non-controlled environment before making any decision as to whether or not to continue any association with them.

    Dec. 4: LaRouche gets hoist by his own petard. Plaintiff Molly Kronberg's memorandum in opposition to LaRouche's motion to dismiss, filed with the court on Nov. 9. Here we see her attorneys, John Bond and John Markham, demolish the defense's arguments point by point, showing them to be based on outdated or irrelevant case law as well as devoid of common sense.

    The memorandum includes some elegant legal reasoning and is well worth careful reading, especially on the issue of whether or not the defendants have a "unity of corporate interest" that would provide them with the protection of the intracorporate conspiracy immunity doctrine, which precludes (under the principles of agency law) a civil conspiracy between a corporation and its agents (officers, directors, employees, etc.).

    We contend that the [intracorporate conspiracy immunity] doctrine has no place here since there is no showing that all four defendants possess such a unity of corporate interest that they are legally incapable of conspiring with each other. Defendant Lyndon LaRouche has no qualifying legal connection with defendant LaRouchePAC, [defendant] Barbara Boyd has no such relationship with defendant EIR, and, of course, Barbara Boyd and Lyndon LaRouche are separate individuals. The two corporations likewise are not functionally joined. Thus the defendants are fully capable of being charged with conspiring with each other.

    Occasionally legal pleadings can be very funny, and I imagine that a shadow of a smile appeared on the judge's face as he perused the following argument re LaRouche's personal eligibility for intracorporate immunity:

    Plaintiff alleges co-defendant Lyndon LaRouche is the founder of LPAC...."Founder" is an historical relationship and contains no allegation as to the present relationship or to the relationship that existed at the time of the alleged wrongful actions.

    Plaintiff alleges co-defendant Lyndon LaRouche is a founding editor and contributing editor of EIR. Again, founder is an historical relationship and contains no allegation as to the present relationship or the relationship that existed at the time of the alleged wrongful actions. A contributing editor means many things to many different publications and does not assert whether the relationship is one of agency, independent contractor or beneficial volunteer.

    If the defendants wish to establish facts not contained in the Complaint to establish LaRouche is an agent of the kind qualifying to trigger the intracorporate immunity as to him and either corporate defendant named in this case, they certainly also have that right to do so and argue their position at a later proceeding. However, the plaintiff also has the right to establish with further facts LaRouche is a separate actor either based upon the personal interest exception...or that he undertook the offensive actions outside the scope of his agency should such an agency actually be established....

    Indeed in this regard plaintiff does allege LaRouche has an independent personal stake in LPAC and organizations that support him as these entities are fundraising conduits funding LaRouche's lavish lifestyle. His extravagant personal lifestyle has no relationship to the success or failure of these corporate defendants' stated purposes but provides cash flow for the defendant to fraudulently raid....Discovery will amplify this.

    The operative word in the above is "discovery," a process that includes document production and pre-trial depositions, both of which LaRouche fears like a vampire fears sunlight. Be afraid, Count Lyndon. Be very afraid. Molly Harker is on your trail.

    Dec. 1: LaRouche, as usual, blames the victim. Here is Der Abscheulicher's (and his co-defendants') memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss Molly Kronberg's libel and harassment-of-a-federal-witness lawsuit. Filed by defendants' counsel with the federal court in Alexandria, Virginia on Oct. 26, this document presents a pathetically unconvincing legal argument while also incorporating propagandistic formulations that appear to have been prepared by convicted felon LaRouche's in-house paralegals rather than by outside attorneys. It is useful, however, for gaining an understanding of how LaRouche and his co-defendants justify to themselves their libel and harassment of a widow whose husband they drove to suicide. Example:

    Following Mr. Kronberg's death on April 11, 2009, Plaintiff began a public and international media campaign in conjunction with long-time opponents of Lyndon LaRouche to blame her husband's death on LaRouche. Plaintiff has been informed by public authorities and lawyers that there was no factual or legal basis for her claim that LaRouche caused her husband's death according to various postings she has made on the Internet, and she has not filed a wrongful death or similar action because of her husband's death. Nonetheless, Plaintiff has continued her attacks with this lawsuit, alleging in conclusory fashion a contrived conspiracy to violate Plaintiff's civil rights based on events that occurred more than 20 years ago.

    Does anyone believe that outside counsel wrote this absurd passage? Note especially the allegation that Plaintiff is basing her suit on "events that occurred more than 20 years ago." In fact, it was LaRouche who raised the issue of events of "more than 20 years ago," accusing Molly Kronberg in numerous statements between 2007 and 2009 of committing the crime of perjury at his 1988 conspiracy and mail fraud trial although he had never made such accusations at any time prior to Mrs. Kronberg quitting his organization and denouncing him in 2007. And it was LaRouche who selected Molly Kronberg's 1988 federal court trial testimony as his chief excuse for having his followers harass her. LaRouche picked this particular rationale out of the almost infinite grab bag of suspicions and grievances that are constantly swirling around in his head, any one of which he could have chosen instead. Thus, through his own willful behavior, LaRouche has laid himself and his associates open to a civil action in federal court for having conspired to harass a federal witness.

    Molly and Ken Kronberg in 2001.

    And it doesn't matter that she was a witness 21 years ago. The federal courts take seriously any conspiracy to harass federal witnesses either before, during or after such witness's testimony; and Section 1985(2) of the Federal Code clearly proscribes such conspiracies:

    "If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified..." (emphasis added).

    Note also that plaintiff's memorandum gives the wrong year (2009) for Kronberg's death, which actually occurred in 2007. Here we see an old pattern: LaRouche cares so little about his victims (whether they die as a result of emotional abuse, physical assault, dangerous deployments, unsafe cult-supplied automobiles with worn tires, or the failure of the cult to provide health insurance for its full-time worker bees), that he can't even get the simplest facts about them straight.

    The erroneous date here is similar to errors in statements LaRouche's org issued after the 2003 death of Jeremiah Duggan, a Jewish lad from the U.K., who apparently was severely beaten about the head after revealing that he was Jewish at a LaRouchian youth cadre school in Wiesbaden, Germany. Over an extended period after the young man's death, LaRouche and his followers referred to Jeremiah (nickname Jerry) as "Jeremy" (a non-Jewish name) and even once as "Jermiah" (as in germ), thus not only insulting a grieving family but also helping to send a message to LaRouche's neo-fascist allies that he has nothing but disdain for Jews who end up dead as a result of his struggle to save the world (although he might have to pretend otherwise, to a certain extent, in order to evade criminal investigation).

    Nov. 21: Erica Duggan's appeal to the U.K. High Court of Justice for a fresh inquest into the death of her son Jeremiah. This "skeleton argument" filed by Mrs. Duggan's counsel last year, appears here for the first time on the web. It includes details of reports by independent forensic experts that contradict the cursory official findings of the German police, who claim that Jeremiah committed suicide by running into traffic on a Wiesbaden motorway shortly after dawn on March 27, 2003, thus causing himself to be hit by one car and then to be run over by another.

    The scene where, according to the lip-service-to-human-rights government of the "new" Germany, Jeremiah Duggan met his death. I ask the reader: Would you trust the German police, long riddled with far-right elements, to investigate the death of a young Jew whose body was found on this motorway less than an hour after he had called his mother for help in escaping from a fascist, anti-Semitic cult with longtime ties to Germany's security services? In fact the cops didn't even try. Six million already dead...who cares about one more?

    Among other items, the skeleton argument includes an excerpt from a 2005 report prepared by forensic scene examiner Allan John Bayle, who is described as "an independent forensic scientist of 30 years experience, formerly of the [London] Metropolitan police." From the conclusion of Mr. Bayle's report:

    "The Blue Volkswagen Golf car showed no evidence of hitting Mr Duggan, although there was damage to the front bumper, there were no fibres, hairs, blood or skin or any other evidence to prove that this car was involved in an accident."

    "The red / brown Peugeot 406 Estate car had considerable damage."

    "The windscreen had been hit several times with an instrument, possibly a crow bar or something similar. There was also no evidence of any fibres, hairs, blood or skin on the broken glass."

    "The offside driver's door had also been hit with probably the same instrument...The dent in the side of the door was too sharp and pointed and therefore, could not have been made by the human body."

    "Mr Duggan and the two cars were together in another place, possibly a builder's yard."

    "I could not find any physical evidence to show that these two vehicles ever came into contact with Mr Duggan. There appeared to be no tyre marks on Mr Duggan or on his clothing."

    "The pathologist's report was very short and did not explain the lack of injuries consistent with a traffic accident."

    "I firmly believe this incident was stage managed and Mr Duggan met his death somewhere else and the body dumped in its position on the road."

    And here's an excerpt from the report of forensic examiner Terence Merston (also ex-Metropolitan police), who visited the scene of Jeremiah's death as well as viewing the photographs.

    "Based on my years of experience in attending thousands of crime scenes as a forensic scene examiner, it is my opinion that the evidence at the scene points towards Jeremiah's death being extremely suspicious and not a road traffic accident, it is also my view that the damage to the Peugeot car has been deliberately caused."

    "The alleged damage to the Volkswagen car (light lens missing and piece of metal hanging down), together with a total lack of physical evidence from Jeremiah on the vehicle and vice versa, it is total[ly] inconsistent with that vehicle having been involved in the alleged accident."

    And a third statement, from forensic scientist and engineer Herr Manfred Tuve:

    "...the head injuries cannot be matched to the damage to the right-hand side of the Peugeot."

    "No drag marks attributable to movement from the right-hand side of the left-hand lane to the left-hand edge of the carriageway were observed on the road surface near the final position of the body. No adhesions of blood or hair were found on the Golf. These would necessarily have been detectable if the deceased had collided with or been run over by the car and if this had caused the severe head injuries, as alleged. What caused the head injuries therefore remains an open question."

    "There are mud-coloured stains and adhesions on the Peugeot, the Golf and the clothing of the deceased, particularly on his shoes. These are not normal grey-black road dust, which is a mixture of different soils, road grit and abraded rubber. Since all three objects can be assigned to a single causal group, it can at least be concluded that they come from a common location."

    Mrs. Duggan had originally applied to the U.K. Attorney General (Baroness Scotland) for a new inquest. After her request was denied (possibly under pressure from British security authorities doing a favor for their German colleagues--who don't want their dealings with the fascist LaRouche org to be made public), Mrs. Duggan took her case to the High Court. The Attorney General's office replied (basing itself on outdated case law), that its denial of her request was immune from judicial review. The High Court, however, disagreed--and granted permission for a judicial review to proceed.

    In March 2009, Mrs. Duggan's attorneys issued a press release stating that "[t]he Attorney General has now agreed to withdraw her refusal and to promptly reconsider our client's application for permission to ask the Court for a fresh inquest." However, as of Nov. 2009 the AG is still stonewalling Mrs. Duggan on the inquest issue.

    Just what has the LaRouche organization been up to in Germany and elsewhere in Europe that would require a coverup of the type that has unfolded over the past six and a half years? The suspicious official maneuverings date back to the earliest days after Jeremiah's death, when the police in Wiesbaden declined to investigate any possible involvement by LaRouche's Schiller Institute (one investigator even described the outfit to Mrs. Duggan as a "respected" local organization), failed to take written statements from the drivers whose cars allegedly had struck Jeremiah, neglected to perform a post-mortem, and even destroyed Jeremiah's clothes (which may have borne trace evidence of a brutal beating) without seeking permission from the family. Subsequently, the German authorities would simply ignore a DNA test which confirmed that Jeremiah's passport (which was not on his body when it was found on the highway but rather in the possession of the Schiller Institute) had his blood on it.

    If the coverup ever begins to unravel, it will bring increased scrutiny on the LaRouche organization and its sinister network of alliances. We may then find out why more than one NATO intelligence/counterintelligence service feels it has to protect this gang of thugs. I suspect the motive has to do with at least one covert operation that went south in the 1980s with disastrous results. (The moral of the story, for the agencies I'm referring to, is that if you lie down with dogs such as LaRouche and his psychopathic followers, you're inevitably going to get fleas.)

    A number of high-level ex-LaRouchians, both in Germany and the United States, know pieces of the puzzle that could help expose the German government's motives and win justice for the Duggan family. But these former close associates of LaRouche, although they love to whine about how they were personally exploited and abused by him, remain quiet about the organization's secret alliances and crimes--not only out of fear but also, in too many cases, because they really don't believe there was anything wrong with the group's ideology and deeds. The only problem, in the view of certain of these former inner-ring members, was LaRouche himself--and especially his self-defeating personality traits that prevented the group from achieving its full potential in the political arena.

    Such individuals--especially those formerly in the German branch of the movement--are proud of what they did, and will (like old SS and NKVD officers) take the LaRouche org's secrets to their graves unless lower-level former members, who do feel a modicum of remorse, start putting pressure on them. I must say I'm not holding my breath.

    Nov. 21: Transcript of Nov. 5, 2008 proceeding before the U.K. High Court re Erika Duggan's request for a fresh inquiry into the death of her son Jeremiah. This transcript, posted here for the first time, includes the most comprehensive description publicly available of the forensic experts' reports obtained by the Duggan family.

    Jeremiah Duggan, 1980-2003. He stood up in a brainwashing session to protest the rampant anti-Semitism, proclaiming "But I'm a Jew!" That may have sealed his fate.

    The hearing transcript includes an excerpt from the report of forensic medical specialist Dr. Ivica Milosavljevic--one of several experts whose findings were presented in argument before Mr. Justice Wyn Williams. (Dr. Milosavljevic had based his analysis on the photographic record and on the April 4, 2003 report of Dr. David Shove, the pathologist who performed a non-forensic post-mortem on the body after it was shipped back to the United Kingdom.)

    "In the report of the performed autopsy, Dr Shove has established abundant quantity of fresh blood in all respiration tracts, as well as numerous bruises of the surface of both lungs. Such a finding is pathonemonic, ie indicates directly the aspiration, inhaling, of a large quantity of blood in both lungs to the level of alveoli and is most probably the direct consequence of hemorrhage from the hurt blood vessels around the fracture of bones of basis of the skull and bones of the face. It also indicates the fact that the death of Jeremiah Duggan was not instant, which should be expected from an injury of head made by overrunning....

    "But that late Duggan lived for some time, few minutes, ie that injury of the head did not arise at once overrunning by motor vehicle but by multiple action of some other mechanical force. This claim is more corroborated by the fact also from the autopsy report by Dr Shove that in the stomach of the victim there was also found an abundant quantity of blood, which is the consequence of swallowing the blood, which had merged from hurt blood vessels around the fracture of the bones, the basis of the skull, the bones of the face, round towards the mouth and respiratory organs.

    "Also in the above mentioned autopsy report, Dr Shove has found the presence of numerous contusions on both hands and on the back side of both forearms. The shape, volume, localisation and symmetric pattern of these injuries on both arms clearly indicate their defensive character...these injuries have been inflicted most probably by multiple actions of the blunt side of a mechanical tool (fists, feet with shoes on, and similar object) brandished onto the surface of both hands and hand sizes of both forearms the moment, when those parts of the body were in an elevated position in the level of the head aiming to protect it from action of the above mentioned blunt side of a mechanical tool brandished."

    The response of the Attorney General's office evaded the above points and simply repeated the German police's position, which was based on a snap judgment made within hours of Jeremiah's death that he was just a suicide, and that no criminal investigation was necessary. The AG's counsel even tried to dismiss the LaRouche issue by asking: "What is the purpose of the inquest, could it allay suspicions or rumours about the involvement of the LaRouche organisation and its members in the time leading up to his death?" What "suspicions or rumors"? Even the LaRouchians and their German police protectors don't deny that Jeremiah attended the Schiller Institute conference in Bad Schwalbach in March 2003 and went on to participate in a LaRouchian cadre school in Wiesbaden immediately thereafter. (His parents even have the handwritten notes he took during these sessions.)

    Lest the LaRouchians on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the web try to debunk Mrs. Duggan's request for a fresh inquest by quoting from the Attorney General's arguments, I note the following:

    1. Justice Williams found for claimant Duggan: "I consider that there are formidable legal difficulties which face the claimant in her quest to succeed in a judicial review....But I have been persuaded that there are sufficiently unusual features about this case that it would be wrong to refuse permission."

    2. According to a March 26, 2009 press release from Mrs. Duggan's attorneys: "In December 2008 [the month following the proceeding described above--DK] the Attorney General, while preparing her evidence for the case, became aware that she had not fully considered some documents received from the German Authorities before refusing our client permission to ask the Court for a second inquest. The Attorney General had had these documents in her possession prior to making her decision in February 2008 [eight months before the High Court proceeding]....Both we and our client are alarmed that it took the Attorney General until well into the Court proceedings to realise her omission."

    3. The LaRouche propagandists on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the Internet hide behind "user names," but no one in the organization is known to have medical training or any scientific knowledge of forensic science or of crime-scene or accident-scene investigation or trace-evidence chemistry. This should be contrasted with the qualifications of the experts whose reports were cited by Mrs. Duggan's attorneys in their "skeleton argument" presented to the High Court.

    4. The LaRouche propagandists cannot muster any scientific evidence to support their negative opinion of the findings of the forensic experts cited by Mrs. Duggan's attorneys. This is because there is no contrary scientific evidence at this point--the German police never performed a post-mortem and therefore never formulated any opinion one way or the other about, say, the evidence of defensive bruises on Jeremiah's arms and of his having sustained severe blows to the head that could not have come from the alleged impact with the cars. Indeed, the only way the German police could formulate a counter-explanation of these findings would be by reopening this case as a criminal investigation, which they adamantly refuse to do. Thus the sole response available to the LaRouchians, the German government and the U.K.'s Deutschland-uber-Duggan Attorney General is to mindlessly repeat the initial opinion formulated by Wiesbaden police investigators within hours of Jeremiah's death and adhered to by them ever since in spite of subsequent findings that raise the most serious doubts about the initial rush to judgment.

    One would think that if the LaRouchians were really innocent of any involvement in Jeremiah's death, as they claim--and if the evidence of foul play were really as insignificant as they say it is--they would welcome a full inquiry in expectation of total exoneration. But instead, they are completely opposed to any fresh examination of this case either by the U.K. authorities, the German authorities or the media. I wish that at least one of LaRouche's internet trolls who love to heap ridicule on Jeremiah's mom while portraying Jeremiah himself as just a crazy person (they say he liked to "run around in traffic") would answer this simple question: Why, if your movement has nothing to hide, are you so adamantly against any further investigation of the circumstances surrounding Jeremiah's death?

    Nov. 6: "Lyndon LaRouche and those 'mystical, misty' Anglo-Saxons." More evidence that Lyn doesn't know what he's talking about. The written record of the Anglo-Saxon era is massive--and hundreds of assiduous scholars have filled in the gaps. Doesn't LaRouche believe in googling a subject before he pontificates on it? Has he ever personally performed a Google search, even once?

    Nov. 6: "Lyndon LaRouche: world's greatest expert on Shakespeare?" Not hardly. Posting by "eaglebeak" exposes LaRouche's ignorance--he can't even get the simplest facts straight. Includes an excerpt from a recent LaRouche speech in which the master of credit card fraud confuses early medieval England with pre-Roman Celtic Britain, and makes statements that indicate he's never even read Shakespeare. He also tells us the English, Scots and Danes of a thousand years ago were morally unfit to survive and indeed were "doomed." Unfortunately for Lyn, they're still here--and thriving.

    Oct. 27 (expanded commentary added Nov. 6): "Crashes, crashes, everywhere, and not a one is real!" Since the 1950s, Lyndon LaRouche has predicted economic doom (depressions and worse) on hundreds of occasions. Mostly, these forecasts have been totally wrong. However, in the normal course of the international economy, recessions and stock market crises do occur from time to time, thus enabling LaRouche to crow about the inevitable intersection of one of his incessant predictions with a real event (while keeping quiet about the 99 out of every 100 times in which he was just whistling Dixie). At the Factnet link above, a LaRouche critic traces the history of the World's Greatest Self-Styled Economist's forecasting failures from 1987 to 2009. I found this to be an excellent piece of work--and, unlike most message board essays, it's well-footnoted. What we need next is a full compilation of LaRouche's Chicken Little warnings re world wars, nuclear holocausts, famines and plagues (also his alarums over the years about assassination plots against himself--none of which were ever actually attempted because none ever existed in the first place).

    I should add that LaRouche is clever like a fox about all this. When an economic crisis occurs, then, regardless of whether it actually converges with one of his predictions (except in the vaguest way), he issues statements in multiple languages boasting of his Nostradamian prescience. Inevitably, some obscure paper in the former Soviet Empire or some flying saucer obsessed Latin America daily will publish the statement either thinking LaRouche is for real or because of the statement's kook value. (The Chinese state media is also inclined to publish LaRouche's pronouncements because he's been for some years now a booster of China's economic and foreign policy interests and of its anti-human rights agenda in Sudan, Zimbabwe and Tibet.)

    Next: LaRouche's worldwide multilingual network of organizers and fake "news correspondents"--who are always trolling for fellow Jew-haters as well as for naifs--will scare up some obscure economist in the Ukraine or a similar impoverished pit (where any economist over 45 would have received his training in the quack economics of the Soviet era) and induce him to issue a statement praising LaRouche either in exchange for some type of compensation or simply to help out a fellow anti-Semite.

    The LaRouche org has been collecting statements from dubious academics in the former Soviet bloc since the early 1990s, when the economic circumstances of academics in that region were generally pretty desperate. And the LaRouchians are especially energetic in cultivating elderly ex-Soviet experts who are beginning to lose their acuity. One example (the Russian equivalent, one might say, of Lyn's nursing home fan the late U.S. Senator Eugene McCarthy) is Stanislav Menshikov, b. 1927, a former Soviet diplomat and Communist Party Central Committee economist, who worked in the KGB-infested UN Secretariat in New York in the 1970s when the LaRouchians were cozying up to a KGB official at the Soviet UN Mission.

    Today, Menshikov is a member of LaRouche's Schiller Institute, according to EIR. At a celebration of Menshikov's 80th birthday in Moscow in May 2007, LaRouche was one of the speakers and was warmly praised in Menshikov's own speech (again, according to EIR, which also asserted that the Russian people should begin once again to listen to "members of the older generation, some of them having been leading figures in the Soviet Union during the Cold War").

    Menshikov (left) and LaRouche in Moscow.

    Statements by the likes of Menshikov praising LaRouche as a major thinker are highlighted in U.S. LaRouche publications to lure in college freshmen--and senior citizens with lootable stock portfolios. But such statements are also employed in attempts to puff up LaRouche's image in non-LaRouchian media; for instance, on Wikipedia.

    LaRouche's Wikipedia war room in Los Angeles takes the statements from the Russian or Chinese press, as well as the effusive praise by former Eastern European central-planning hacks, and uses them in sly edits of the Wiki LaRouche bio and in talk-page defenses of those edits (read here) to make it appear that LaRouche really is a great economist and that his critics are all liars.

    In the case of Menshikov, the LaRouchians were especially clever, citing the fact that he has his own Wikipedia biography as proof for the notability of his opinion on LaRouche. But the history of Wikipedia's short Menshikov article shows that it was created by one "MaplePorter," a pro-LaRouche editor who would later be banned from Wiki as one of the estimated 50 "sock puppet" user names that have been employed (often several of them at the same time) by a long-banned LaRouchian trickster known as "Herschelkrustofsky."

    It's not as if the LaRouchians have total free rein on Wikipedia. An editor with the user name "Willbeback" got into a battle with pro-LaRouche editor "Leatherstocking" over the latter's incessant restoring of quotes and citations from Russian sources that were intended to demonstrate that LaRouche is a great economic thinker and statesman. Leatherstocking's references were few in number, the publications were dubious (one of them had been described euphemistically by the LaRouchians as a "Russian patriotic journal") and the articles were only available in the original Russian, so non-LaRouchian editors couldn't easily verify the contents. Willbeback contrasted this casual attitude to the job of providing credible sources with the earlier insistence by LaRouchian editors that non-LaRouchians supply numerous sources for the most common criticisms of LaRouche (like that he's anti-Semitic):

    Leatherstocking, I count seven Russian citations in your listing above: three for "Leading economist" and four for "Founder of Physical Economics", and none of those appear to have been from the most prominent Russian news sources. By contrast, the other phrases used for LaRouche that are in the lead have far more citations. There are 72 sources for "anti-semite" and 56 for "fascist", many of them in the newspapers of record, or quotations from prominent individuals. If the threshold is just 3 or 4 cites, then there are many more terms we should add [like "crypto-Nazi"?--DK]. If the threshold is higher, then we should delete the Russian terms. But we can't have it both ways.

    Shortly after this amusing interchange (which one talk-page reader said was "better than watching Seinfeld"), Wiki administrators finally banned Leatherstocking indefinitely after obtaining proof that he was in fact posting from the same LaRouchian business office as the previously banned Herschelkrustofsky. (LaRouche Watch will be posting more soon on the Wikipedia wars.)

    Oct. 6: The Newman-Fulani organization: a study in deception. Here, available on the web for the first time, is the Anti-Defamation League's 1990 report on Newman, Fulani and their "Marxist-Leninist" therapy cult (the shadowy International Workers Party). Shorter but in some respects more perceptive than the ADL's 1996 report ("A Cult by Any Other Name"), this one has a certain literary as well as political interest--it was written by the distinguished American novelist David Evanier, who worked as an ADL editorial staffer in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

    Of special importance is the section on Newman and Fulani's dealings with Libya (pp. 8-9), including how Fulani led an IWP delegation to the then capital of terrorism in 1987 and how she and Newman held a rally at their Castillo Cultural Center in April 1989--only four months after the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland--at which Newman called for "unconditional defense" of the Libyans. Also, on page 9, Evanier cites how Newman and Fulani's National Alliance mourned the death in 1988 of Palestinian terrorist Abu Jihad--the mastermind of the Black September attacks at the 1972 Munich Olympics. According to Evanier, the cult's weekly newspaper hailed Abu Jihad as "one of the [international left's] greatest political-military tacticians" while labelling his assassins a "Zionist murder squad."

    Fulani (center) in Libya's Geryan Mountains in April 1987. She and her International Workers Party delegation were paid by the Libyan government (at the urging of Louis Farrakhan) to attend a "peace" conference that was really an unsuccessful attempt to launch a Terrorist International. This was at a time when Gadhafi was already targeting American military personnel with his terror attacks. On Fulani's left is IWP muckamuck Nancy Ross, who in 2005 would receive tens of thousands of dollars from a lump sum donated by Mayor Bloomberg to the New York City Independence Party (an IWP front) for campaign work on behalf of his 2005 reelection bid.

    I hope Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor will read this report, and do some hard thinking about whether she wants to continue her involvement with the Newman-Fulani movement. I also hope that her fellow justices will read it, and demand that she repudiate this sick cult.

    I'd like to hope that Mayor Bloomberg would also break with Newman and Fulani--and apologize to the families of the 270 victims killed in the Pam Am Flight 103 explosion for his foolish mistake in donating $50,000 to the Castillo Cultural Center in 2002 (only months after Fulani had compounded her earlier antics by blaming the Sept. 11, 2001 murder of an additional 3,000 innocents on the "arrogance" and "aggression" of the U.S. government). Unfortunately, our mayor doesn't seem morally capable of recognizing that there's anything seriously wrong with the beliefs and practices of his Newmanite friends.

    Sept. 3: Widow of Ken Kronberg targets LaRouche's weekly "news" magazine. Molly Kronberg, who filed suit last month in federal court against Lyndon LaRouche, his political action committee, and one of his top aides, has now added the EIR News Service, putative publisher of LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review, as a defendant in the case.

    It looks like a real news magazine...until you examine the fine print.

    In her amended complaint filed in federal court in Alexandria, VA on Sept. 2 (click above for PDF), Mrs. Kronberg cited passages from EIR earlier this year that mirror those in the LaRouchePAC press releases and LaRouche "morning briefings" which she had already presented as evidence of "harassment of a federal witness and libel." For instance, according to the amended complaint:

    The March 6, 2009 issue of EIR published an article on page 79, which asserted that the federal government's 1988 "railroad" conviction of Lyndon LaRouche "relied exclusively on perjured testimony from one crucial witness, Molly Kronberg, whose false statements under oath were the basis for the illegal conviction of LaRouche on false allegations of tax fraud conspiracy. LaRouche was sentenced to 15 years in Federal prison on the fabricated charges, and colleagues were sentenced to 3-5 years, all on the basis of the fraudulent Kronberg testimony, which centered on her own criminal uttering of a false check."

    It is widely known that EIR is a scurrilous propaganda rag that has accused the targets of LaRouche's wrath (ex-followers, Jewish bankers, environmentalists, investigative journalists, leftwing activists, neoconservative pundits, European aristocrats, members of the British royal family, etc.) of a wide variety of unsubstantiated motives and actions involving drug trafficking, terrorism, child abuse, Satanic rituals--and plots to assassinate or otherwise harm LaRouche.

    The chief allegation about Mrs. Kronberg cited in the amended complaint--that she committed perjury at LaRouche's trial as a part of a government conspiracy to destroy him--is especially ridiculous because Mrs. Kronberg remained on the National Committee of LaRouche's organization for 19 years following the trial without LaRouche or any other member of the org ever once accusing her of the alleged treachery that is now being outlined for the first time. LaRouche was present in court when she appeared as a witness under duress (and, as only one of many government witnesses), and he personally heard the prosecutor's questions and her answers. Why didn't he complain about her testimony then? Why did this notoriously paranoid man continue to trust her in a responsible position in his org for almost two decades thereafter?

    It would appear that LaRouche is raising these allegations in an attempt to divert his followers' attention--and that of the general public--away from Mrs. Kronberg's recent public statements in which she has characterized LaRouche as an abusive cult leader who drove her husband to suicide in April 2007.

    Whenever LaRouche has come under attack over the years for criminal activity, anti-Semitic hate speech, or mistreatment of followers, he has always added a new twist, or a new circle of villains, to his conspiracy theory, using this tactic to turn the reality of his self-created problems inside out in the minds of his loyalists.

    In the current instance, LaRouche says that Molly Kronberg was and is involved in an ongoing plot emanating from high places, that Ken knew about it and was torn between his loyalty to Molly and his loyalty to LaRouche, that Ken ultimately saw no way out of his divided loyalties except via suicide, and that the Episcopalian "witch" Molly is responsible for Ken's suicide.

    In this manner, LaRouche manages to pose as the defender of Ken's good name and, ultimately, as Ken's wrathful avenger. Such breathtakingly cynical cognitive reframings--mirroring those in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four--have been a key feature of life inside the LaRouche cult for decades. Unfortunately, many of his high-IQ boomers just can't see through (or don't want to see through) what is ultimately a child-like logic rooted in LaRouche's malignant narcissism.

    EIR has been a vehicle for the Orwellian nonsense of LaRouche ever since its founding in the mid-1970s. Now that Mrs. Kronberg has drawn much-needed attention to the magazine's true nature, I'd like to follow up with an overdue question about its relationship to Google.

    For years, the world's premier search engine has spidered EIR for its "Google News"--as if LaRouche's magazine were a legitimate online news source. This should end. EIR should be treated for what it really is--a propaganda website producing wildly unreliable reports that mirror the mind of a paranoid anti-Semite.

    I am not suggesting that Google should withhold the contents of EIR from the public. I'm merely saying that EIR should be removed from the index of news sites that are accessed via Google News. LaRouche's publication should be treated like an ordinary website the search engine listings of which are not given any special imprimatur of reliability and topicality.

    This is not an unprecedented idea. In 2005, Google News removed neo-Fascist publishers in the U.S. and Germany from its news index (read here). In the case of LaRouche, persuading Google to do the right thing would require that Jewish communal leaders show some backbone, which in turn would require them to repudiate the double standard that long has protected LaRouche simply because he, unlike David Duke and Louis Farrakhan, is cunning enought to wrap his hate in code language and recruit anti-Semitic Jews to serve as his smokescreen.

    And it might help if more individuals from the ex-LaRouchian community would decide it's time to stop prevaricating, and come forward with public testimony as to the sinister ideas and sentiments that in fact permeate the LaRouche movement.

    August 23: Widow of cult victim sues LaRouche in federal court. Marielle (Molly) Kronberg, widow of northern Virginia businessman Kenneth Kronberg, filed a lawsuit last Friday in U.S. Federal Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against cult leader Lyndon LaRouche and his political action committee, claiming they have defamed and libeled her and have "conspired to injure her" because she once provided testimony against LaRouche in a federal criminal trial. (Click above for PDF of her complaint.)

    Mrs. Kronberg's suit (Case No. 09cv947) comes after three years of public statements by Mr. LaRouche trying to blame her for the death of her husband, who had been the cult's printer and, along with his wife, a member of the LaRouche organization for decades. Mr. Kronberg committed suicide on April 11, 2007, only hours after Mr. LaRouche--who had subjected Mr. Kronberg to incessant verbal abuse for several years--suggested in a daily briefing to the cult's membership that Mr. Kronberg should consider killing himself.

    LaRouche: It's all the fault of "that witch."

    The suicide caused consternation among Mr. LaRouche's followers as well as attention from the media, thus apparently prompting Mr. LaRouche's efforts to shift the blame. Here's a sample (April 26, 2009) of the rhetoric his daily briefings have used against Mrs. Kronberg, as cited in her court papers:

    "Now, you've got a situation, where he kills himself, because he was living with that witch: Who's been evil all along! Her behavior had never been good. She's never been honest. And then, he commits suicide, and these bums try to blame me for it! He was driven--there was no reason for the suicide, there was no excuse for it. But there's an understanding of the oppression that he felt by being married to that bitch. Because he was a moral person. He made a lot of mistakes. But it was on the question of divided loyalty, divided pressures. And she was evil. And she still is."

    Mr. LaRouche laid himself open to a federal court suit when he also alleged that Mrs. Kronberg had perjured herself during Mr. LaRouche's widely publicized 1988 federal criminal trial in which prosecutors said he'd swindled millions of dollars from senior citizens across the country. Mrs. Kronberg testified under subpoena by the prosecution, and says that although she was a LaRouche follower at the time, she had attempted to answer all questions truthfully. Mr. LaRouche is now suddenly claiming--19 years later--that she testified falsely in order to destroy him. Mr. LaRouche was convicted in the 1988 trial on loan fraud and conspiracy charges, after the jury heard testimony from many of the victims of his scams. He received a sentence of five to 15 years in federal prison, and ended up serving five years (1989-1994).

    Mrs. Kronberg is represented by co-counsel John Bond of Fairfax, VA and John Markham of Boston, MA. Mr. Markham is the former Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Mr. LaRouche in the 1988 trial, which took place in the same Eastern District of Virginia court in which Mrs. Kronberg has now filed suit. Mr. LaRouche lives near Purcellville, Virginia, and his cult's national offices are in Leesburg.

    The E.D. Virginia was also the venue for a 1984 civil suit Mr. LaRouche filed against NBC that likewise resulted in a high-profile trial. Mr. LaRouche accused NBC of libelling him in a TV news magazine segment which reported that Mr. LaRouche had once discussed killing President Jimmy Carter with a remote-controlled bomb, and which included an interview with an Anti-Defamation League official who called Mr. LaRouche a "small-time Hitler."

    After hearing rambling and abuse-laden testimony from plaintiff LaRouche, the jury found that NBC had not libelled him--and awarded the broadcasting giant $3 million in punitive damages on a counterclaim (later reduced by the judge to $200,000).

    Dennis King, an expert on cults and the author of Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, stated regarding Mrs. Kronberg's suit: "No outsider has a better grasp of the inner workings of the LaRouche cult than John Markham. And no former insider understands it better than Molly Kronberg. If this case ever goes to trial, I predict that LaRouche will lose big--especially after yet another Virginia jury has listened to his bombast on the witness stand day after day."

    Readers with information they believe might be helpful to Mrs. Kronberg's case should contact:

    John J.E. Markham, II
    One Commercial Wharf West
    Boston, Massachusetts 02110
    Tel: (617) 523-6329
    Fax: (617) 742-8604

    Those who wish to donate towards the expenses of Mrs. Kronberg's lawsuit should send their checks to Mr. Markham at the above address. All checks should be payable to: Markham & Read Client Trust Account (with notation: "For Molly Kronberg v. LaRouche Legal Fees and Expenses"). All donations will be recorded and an accounting of all expenditures will be kept on a monthly basis.

    August 17: Fred Newman and Lenora Fulani make hay out of their connection to Sotomayor. When Sonia Sotomayor was being sworn in on August 8 as the newest Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, over one hundred young people were watching it on TV at the mid-Manhattan headquarters of the All Stars Project--a youth charity run by Marxist psychotherapy guru Newman and his sidekick Fulani where Sotomayor has long served as a mentor for teenagers. Although the kids doubtless were thrilled to see "their" Sonia take the oath of office, Newman and Fulani apparently saw it as an opportunity to garner publicity for themselves even if it might prove embarrassing to their most famous volunteer worker.

    The result was, among other news items, this segment on CBS-TV's New York Local News gushing over All Stars, its kids, and the Supreme Court Justice Who Cares. Apparently the show's producers couldn't bother to spend a couple of minutes googling the youth program (if they had, they might have restrained the puffery a bit). I can only imagine how much this TV clip (and other adulatory news reports about Sotomayor's work with All Stars) will be worth in donations to Newman and Fulani from wealthy liberals--and how much it will improve the public image of their cult-racket. Still, the news segment does give us two useful bits of information:

    All Stars Project's theater and offices (including telephone fundraising boiler room) in midtown Manhattan.

    First, we are told (and this apparently comes from All Stars CEO Gabrielle Kurlander, who is interviewed during the segment) that Sotomayor has been working with the charity since 2002. Note how, as more information about Sotomayor and the Newmanites emerges, the starting point of her association with Lenora Fulani and other cult organizers keeps getting pushed back: from 2006 to 2003 to 2002 (and that's assuming our new Supreme Court Justice's first contact with the Newmanites was through All Stars and not through social therapy sessions at an even earlier date--a large percentage of All Stars volunteers are recruited through social therapy).

    Second, the script of the news segment states: "Even though she now serves on the highest court in the land, organizers at the All Stars project believe [again, this is probably from Kurlander] that Sotomayor will be back this year to run a workshop." Does that mean All Stars already has a commitment from her?

    It would appear that the incontrovertible evidence of the sleaziness of All Stars founder and behind-the-scenes leader Newman--for instance, his defense of patient-therapist sex on NY 1 News in 2005 (here) and again in 2007 (here and here), and his boastful 1990 account here of his own behavior as a therapist which he published along with pathetically servile expressions of adulation from several of the women in question, including Kurlander, here--will be dumped into the New York Times/Fox TV Memory Hole for political reasons. It would also appear that the media will continue to ignore the various eyewitness accounts suggesting that the reality of All Stars has been quite different from what's in the fundraising brochures or displayed at the Potemkin Village talent shows, and that the Newman cult's record with young people over the past 37 years has been nothing short of appalling (see here and here).

    However, on the issue of the Newmanites parasiting off Sotomayor to improve their image, it was actually the Obama administration that first seized on Sotomayor's work for All Stars (which the cult had been rather discreet about) as a way of presenting her as the minority candidate who "gives back" to her community. Newman and Fulani were thus presented with an opportunity they couldn't let pass. I just wonder how many teens will end up on the cult's Marxoid/Friendosexual recruitment track as a result of the recent publicity boost for All Stars.

    July 30: Fred Newman lays bare the secrets of his cult racket (Judge Sotomayor take note!). Here's the transcript of a clandestine 1983 meeting of the so-called Office of Economic Development (OED) of the International Workers Party (the party that Newman would have us believe is a myth--he's trained the members to "perform" its non-existence when among outsiders). Newman and other IWP leaders--most of whom are still with him today--discuss in this transcript the party's control of various front groups, including social therapy's New York clinic, and allude to what appear to be plans or practices re money laundering, loan fraud and other financial crimes.

    The transcript--long available to researchers at but presented here in a reader-friendly version--also shows that Newman's greed was clearly getting out of control: "There's big money in Marxist-Leninist organizing if we set up the structure." And: "The damn New York Institute for Social Therapy and Research is a bloody goldmine. I really wish I could convince you business types that that's true. There's big money out there. In all of its versions--Marxist version, cleaned-up version--all the different versions. There's heavy money."

    "There's big money in Marxist-Leninist organizing"? Left: organizer. Right: big money.

    Judge Sonia Sotomayor, our soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice who apparently thinks the Newmanites are the cat's meow so far as youth programs go, should read this transcript. Yes, read it, Judge. Count how many times the participants in this discussion appear to be referring to past, present or anticipated criminal acts. Count how many times they refer to what appears to be the manipulation of social therapy patients (all IWP members have to undergo social therapy) in order to squeeze donations to the party from them (a highly unethical practice, if not an illegal one). Do you think this crew has changed over the years? That Newman and his communist "wives" and other IWP "lifers" have magically turned into the Father Damians and Mother Teresas of inner-city charity work? Just what kind of Harry Potter spell would have accomplished this?

    And please note that although the statute of limitations has obviously run out on any criminal acts that may have been alluded to in this transcript, the document also provides evidence--as does subsequent information on the public record--that the Newman network is structured in some respects like a racketeering enterprise (see New York Newsday articles here and Gasink complaint here, both from the early 1990s).

    As to recent questionable activity: Why in the early and middle 2000s was All Stars raising funds from the public for a supposedly very large talent show program (for many years, they falsely claimed to work with 20,000 kids annually) yet only producing three or four shows each year in New York? Why was the All Stars Talent Show Network reporting expenditures of over a quarter million dollars per each of these shows, which were held in public high schools where only modest rental fees (if any) were charged, and with staffing mostly by adult and youth volunteers? What happened to this money (as much as eight million dollars over about a decade): Was it simply transferred elsewhere through the creative IWP accounting techniques alluded to by Newman in the 1983 transcript?

    You should not need to be told, Judge Sotomayor, but I'll say it anyway: your involvement with these people has been naive, reckless and totally inappropriate for a federal judge. You should immediately separate yourself from any and all entities controlled by Fred Newman, Lenora Fulani and their followers.

    Mayor Bloomberg, shown here testifying at Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearing, played a huge role in President Obama's decision to nominate the Wise Latina. Is it a coincidence that of all the Supreme Court-qualified judges in New York (or in the entire United States), Bloomberg chose to promote the only one who happens to be involved with his Newmanite friends? And will Sotomayor, given what she owes to the mayor, ever be willing to repudiate her involvement with Newman's All Stars Project?

    July 26: "Lyndon LaRouche: make-believe scholar." Factnet's "eaglebeak" once again skewers the World's Greatest Genius for his inability to process even the most elementary facts and details of academic scholarship--this time, in his ramblings on Shakespeare, ancient Greek literature, and Latin philology. And then there's Lyn's views on the "rottenness" of all human culture outside of his own movement...

    July 24: How the LaRouche Youth Movement recruited my son. Speech by French mother B. Bonneau at the Justice for Jeremiah public meeting, Wiesbaden, Germany, March 27, 2009. "My son's 18th birthday is probably the saddest day of my life. None of his friends came. There was nothing to celebrate. He wasn't leaving to become an adult, but to become a shadow, a LaRouchite..."

    July 23: Roger Griffin's paper "Lingua Quarti Imperii: The Euphemistic Tradition of the Extreme Right." This was the major paper at the International Symposium on the Language of Far-right Movements held at Northampton University, June 26, 2009.

    Roger Griffin.

    Although Griffin does not deal directly with the linguistic tricks of the LaRouche organization, his analysis is profoundly pertinent to understanding LaRouchism. For instance: "One social function of professional or 'official' system/regime-sustaining euphemism is to counteract the pain of cognitive dissonance....State 'Newspeak' offers a series of unquestioned automatisms which allow people to reconcile their societal lives and the demands made on them by their official function with core moral values....In extreme cases a regime's Newspeak...allows the coexistence or active collusion of theoretically incompatible...value-systems..."

    Griffin, a professor at Oxford Brookes University, is the author of The Nature of Fascism (1991). Every former member of the LaRouche organization could benefit from reading his paper on the euphemistic tradition, even though it is still only in outline form.

    July 23: The "forked tongue" of Lyndon LaRouche--and of Hitler. Two ex-LaRouche followers discuss how malignancy gets disguised by clever use of words. "Of course, the Nazis didn't say they were going to slaughter the disabled. They also didn't say that they were going to exterminate the Jews of Europe--they said they were going to 'solve the Jewish question,' and left enough vagueness in their formulations that--at first--the population might believe that all the Jews were going to be deported to Madagascar or some such."

    As to LaRouche & Co.: "Only people who have NO conception of what the Nazis were...could talk about Nazi health care plans. It's in the same category as what [critics inside the org] used to refer to as the 'Auschwitz was a daycare center polemic' that LaRouche and his minions essayed in the late 1970s/early 1980s. Or the 'Hitler was raised in a Warburg orphanage' claptrap LaRouche tried on for size in the same period."

    July 23: Will Sotomayor try to say that she didn't know about Newman and Fulani's Body Snatcher cult? Apart from the fact that just about everyone in New York politics in the early 2000s knew Newman and Fulani were nuts, Sotomayor may have read media exposes of their network such as this 1999 cover article from The New Republic: "What You Don't Know About Lenora Fulani Could Hurt You." Before signing up as a volunteer, Sotomayor easily could have found the TNR piece at (along with massive additional documentation). And at any time after its original publication she could have accessed the article (or gotten one of her assistants at the Federal court to access it) via LEXIS-NEXIS. My guess is that she DID read TNR's unsparing critique of the Newman movement--which tells, among other things, about their clandestine "International Workers Party," the paramilitary camp, the quack therapy, and Newman's predatory sexual behavior--but managed to rationalize it away in order to pursue her new friendships with Fulani, Pam Lewis, etc.

    Playwright William Pleasant--a former member of the IWP's central committee and a key eyewitness source for the TNR article--sent me his take on Sotomayor and Fulani the other day:

    "Sotomayor, a child of the NYC regular Democratic Party--literally sprung from the thighbone of Chuck Schumer--is no political fawn-in-the-woods. She knows who Fulani is. She knows that Fulani's alleged Youth Development program is but one of many paper-mâché "charities" hatched by Fred Newman to shake down corporations and guilty liberals in the name of ghetto kids. The kids get nothing in the end, Newman gets paid.

    William Pleasant.

    "Sotomayor knows that Newman/Fulani are a walking political shipwreck, careening from one end of the political spectrum to the other in search of patronage--READ: $$$ and only $$$ for themselves. There are certainly scores of former Newman associates who could have pulled the WISE LATINA's coat to Newman's corruption and dubious psychiatric schemes--including his self-serving myth of development and copulating with his patients. No parade of pro-Newman schills can erase 40 years of Newman's lies, abuse and graft. And Fulani's lockstep obedience to her 'mentor'. It's public record.

    "So, why is Sotomayor agush for Lenora Fulani's sandlot bootstrapping program? It's a phony from start to finish. Only Sotomayor can answer. She should have been asked in Washington at her confirmation hearing. Rev. Al Sharpton certainly got rewarded for boosting Newman's All Stars Network ("Let's Develop") scam. How about Sotomayor? Let's hear."

    [NOTE: Mr. Pleasant was Newman's close pal in the 1980s and knew many of the group's secrets--where they stashed the cash, where they hid the guns, etc. He quit when it became clear to him that Newman was using the party's funds for personal purposes. Mr. Pleasant became an outspoken critic of the group, in spite of being physically assaulted by Newman loyalists. You can read here his statement about coerced abortions in the IWP, which should shed a bit of light on where Fulani fan Sotomayor stands on Roe v. Wade.]

    July 22: Judge Sotomayor, your favorite charity is part of a destructive cult! If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe this 2007 University of Minnesota Ph.D. dissertation by sociologist Alexandra Stein, who closely examined how social therapist Fred Newman recruits and controls his followers. I also urge you to read Dr. Stein's recent comments on her blog here, in which she gives you the benefit of the doubt re your involvement with All Stars (she was once in a cult herself and knows how easy it is for such groups to manipulate idealistic people).

    Sociologist Alex Stein.

    I agree it's easy to fall victim to cult manipulation. I myself was briefly taken in by Newman's followers in 1977 and even wrote a newspaper article that defended them against charges of cultism and helped elected one of their candidates to a Manhattan school board (I corrected my mistake in follow-up articles). However, for you to stay around them for six years or more, and not spot their weirdness and sociopathy, betrays extraordinary naivete, at the least. And your allowing the White House to cite your work for Newman's Development School for Youth as an example of your civic mindedness and concern for social justice can only be described as outrageous.

    Judge Sotomayor, you are about to ascend to the Supreme Court of the United States--and Supreme Court justices should be held to the very highest standards. You owe it to the American people and to the leaders of this country who've placed their trust in you--and to the kids you've irresponsibly helped to steer into the Social Therapy orbit--to look beneath this cult's deceptive veneer.

    First, read Dr. Stein's study, then read my "Report to the City" here which documents Social Therapy's appalling exploitation of children and teens going back to the early 1970s. Talk with former members of the cult. Ask American Psychological Association ethicists about Newman's ideas on patient-therapist sex. And finally, do the right thing: Publicly renounce all association with All Stars, Newman and Newman's sidekick Lenora Fulani. Contact all the young people who were in your All Stars workshops, and also their parents. Tell them about your decision and warn them about the true nature of this outfit.

    Stein's chart of the Newman cult from inner to outer layers: Fred's "wives," the "40 lifers," the "party cadre" divided into "cells," the cultural and political peripheries.

    July 16: Lyndon LaRouche, would-be classical scholar. I thought I'd proven LaRouche's ignorance and fatuousness pretty thoroughly in my analysis of his views on history and military affairs here, but I apparently only scratched the surface. Now "eaglebeak" of Factnet has undertaken to puncture Lyn's pretensions as a classicist. Lest anyone think eaglebeak is nit-picking, I should point out that LaRouche presents himself to his followers as the world's greatest authority on classical thought--without ever having bothered to learn Greek or Latin (or to read, even in translation, the Greek philosophers he pontificates on).

    Alas, the so-called British oligarchy will never give Lyn the job of his dreams, tutoring all those potential young Prometheans at Oxford...

    July 14: "Performing the World" with Sonia Sotomayor? In responding to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, Judge Sotomayor has revealed that she gave a speech to a Development School for Youth graduating class as early as 2003. And here, on the committee's webpage, is the text of that speech, which suggests that Sotomayor was already beginning to pick up the Newmanite jargon: "We all have to work and to perform our lives....I hope you hold on to the memory of each time you performed in this program and felt good about yourself and about the group you have been part of." (emphasis added)

    And: "Look at me. Look at Dr. Fulani and Pam Lewis [a longtime Newman follower who helps lead All Stars]. Look at all of the people who have led you in workshops. These can be your lives." Hmmm...Sotomayor is recommending Farrakhan friend Lenora Fulani--the woman who once urged Libya's Col. Gadhafi to get "not nonviolent" with the United States--as a role model for teens?

    July 14: Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and the "friendosexual" cult. The media has pretty much ignored the Daily News column by Errol Louis (June 9) that reveals how Sotomayor has worked as a volunteer for the past four years (actually it's at least six years--see above) with the Development School for Youth (DSY), a program controlled by veteran anti-Semite and psychotherapy guru Fred Newman along with his infamous sidekick Lenora Fulani. The White House says that the DSY is Sotomayor's "favorite project."

    The DSY--a dress for success program based on the idea that you succeed by performing as if you were succeeding--is part of the All Stars Project, a multimillion dollar charity scam founded by therapist Newman, who has bragged publicly about having sex with his patients. Newman's cult has introduced his theory of "friendosexuality" to teenagers via the All Stars programs. The cult--which works with kids as young as four through an All Stars talent show network--also has a history of defending the National Man-Boy Love Association and a number of high-profile individuals and groups accused of abusing children.

    Oh, and don't forget the clandestine revolutionary meetings at Chinese restaurants, the burn-after-reading commands from headquarters, and the semi-automatic weapons training at a Pennsylvania farm where, um, things got a bit out of hand.

    It would have taken no more than five minutes of due diligence via Google for Judge Sotomayor to find all this out. Perhaps she never bothered to check...Or perhaps she just sees nothing wrong (as disgraced former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer didn't either) with the antics of Newman and his multiple "wives," the most important of whom is the one you never hear about--the bookkeeper.

    My opinion? If after several years of hanging out with the Newmanites, Sotomayor still doesn't notice that there's anything Pod-like going on, she doesn't have the judgment or common sense to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The most charitable spin one can put on this is that neither Obama (a former law professor) nor Sotomayor (a former prosecutor) did any due diligence on the Development School for Youth.

    July 14: The Fred Newman cult tells us that the National Man-Boy Love Association is only a group of tragically misunderstood men and boys who're into "consensual" sex. This little piece of special pleading is from Newman's former newspaper The New York Alliance, Jan. 10, 1983. The author accepts NAMBLA's self-definition at face value, reviles law enforcement as a bunch of fascists, and sorrowfully observes that "what is desirable (what should be) is not always what is possible."

    This article shouldn't be dismissed as some one-shot opinion piece expressing only the author's personal views. Nothing this controversial EVER would have appeared in Newman's paper without his express approval of its ideological contents. Indeed, it marks the beginning of an off-again/on-again Newmanite campaign to defend notorious child abusers that would continue into the mid-1990s. (And note to the left of the article the ad for Newman's then-named New York Institute for Social Therapy and Research.)

    Although the article appears under the heading "The Pink Triangle," no one should blame this on the gay or lesbian movement, which Newman and his followers were never legitimately involved in. (Newman did induce straight men in his cult to dress up as gay in order to man tables asking for money to fight AIDS--the cash would then go to his inner core to be used, according to ex-members, for purposes unconnected to the AIDS issue.)

    I hope that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court (and a former prosecutor), will read this early 1980s piece which expresses the cult's evolving views on the issue of sex with minors. Sotomayor has been working as a volunteer with Newman's Development School for Youth, which she describes as her favorite charity. She certainly needs to learn something about the history of this charity--and of the people who run it.

    July 10: "Pawns of His Grandiosity: Psychological and Social Control in the Lyndon LaRouche Cult." Molly Kronberg's paper for the panel on LaRouche at the University of Northampton's June 26, 2009 symposium, "Speaking with Forked Tongues: The Rhetoric of Right-Wing Extremism Today." In my opinion, this is the best analysis of the LaRouche "Boomer" org's cultism by an American ex-member since Linda Ray's 1986 In These Times article.

    Writes Mrs. Kronberg, from her perspective as a former National Committee member: "Fear and love--the emotions felt for a Father--were the emotions engendered by 'Lyn.' It was all part of his apotheosis, his assumption of Godlike qualities of infallibility."

    And: "He was watching over your shoulder--your internal, psychic shoulder. He was the measure of all things, the standard to which you tuned your thoughts, your behavior, your self. Rejection by LaRouche meant ego-death in the organization--and was meant to mean that. Thus every member would strive mightily to please 'Lyn.' If you did not so strive, and did not strive obviously, you were suspect."

    July 9: How David P. Goldman and Jeffrey Steinberg equated Zionism with gangsterism and portrayed a respected U.S. Jewish leader as a symbolic Font of Evil. This is an expansion of my analysis of Goldman's "Confessions of a Coward" in which the former LaRouche aide tells lie after lie in an attempt to evade responsibility for his career as an anti-Semitic propagandist. I've also expanded (and corrected a few errors in) my comments on the dubious sourcing of the information in the second edition of Dope, Inc. (1986), co-authored by Goldman and Steinberg.

    The late Max Fisher: demonized by Goldman and other LaRouche minions as a Symbolic Evil Jew.

    June 23: Is David Goldman (aka "Spengler") being truthful about his past with Lyndon LaRouche? Well, among other things, he didn't join LaRouche's movement in 1976, as he now claims, but was already a member in 1969; he didn't leave his editorial post with LaRouchian publications in 1982, as he claims, but continued to serve as an EIR editor until 1988; and he certainly was not just a fearful bystander re the LaRouche org's production of anti-Semitic propaganda. Here is a detailed analysis of Goldman's "Confessions of a Coward" (First Things website, May 7) and of what he either left out, lied about, or grotesquely distorted.

    David Goldman and other LC members, 1969.

    June 15: LaRouche: I know how to conquer the world--and it sure needs conquering! This 1978 article by Der Abscheulicher was posted here last year, but in a hard-to-read format. Here it is with expanded commentary, a new format, and dozens of illustrations both wacky and serious. Step by step, we take you through the mind of America's most celebrated monomaniac, relentlessly exposing his grandiose schemes, his obsessive use of anti-Semitic euphemisms and ellipticisms, and his appalling ignorance of just about every topic he touches on.

    Although we focus much of our commentary on LaRouche's peekaboo Hitler fantasies involving poison gases and bacteriological weapons, we would caution our readers not to start darting dirty looks at their ex-LaRouchian neighbor in the supermarket aisle. Probably many of LaRouche's followers in the late 1970s didn't even notice the most outrageous statements in this article, because they had gotten into the habit of only skimming very briefly (if that) the nonstop flood of repetitive (and eminently forgettable) tracts that emanated from his late-night alcohol-drenched ruminations.

    Strange as it may seem, a large percentage of LaRouche's followers at that time knew subconsciously that his writings were scarcely worth reading even though they continued (and some still continue) to adulate him as their Genius-Leader. But this lack of attention to the details of what he was (and is) saying--especially in the case of those who remained in the movement for many years thereafter--can't entirely be dismissed as a joke: most Germans in the 1930s only skimmed a few pages, at best, of the equally turgid Mein Kampf, although everyone bought it, displayed it on their coffee tables, and began to act according to its precepts.

    May 28: LaRouche's version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? In a recent blog essay, former LaRouche aide David P. Goldman conceded that Dope, Inc., a key LaRouche movement tract co-authored by Goldman in 1978, has "unmistakable anti-Semitic overtones." Here are excerpts from Dope, Inc., highlighted and carefully annotated, showing not only that Goldman is correct (as far as he goes) but also that this underground conspiracist "classic" is a Jew-baiting screed of the highest order of virulence--a prescription for what the authors envisioned as a "mop up" campaign against Jews allegedly involved with the British monarchy in a giant drug-pushing plot.

    Also included is documentation on how Dope, Inc. was used by the LaRouchians in the late 1970s and into the 1980s as a tool in attempting to build an anti-Semitic mass movement around the drug issue. And this first edition of Dope, Inc. in which the infamous Protocols forgery is described as the authentic minutes of a Paris "Order of Zion" meeting, is today being promoted on the website of the LaRouche Youth Movement, a cadre formation founded circa 2001 that is recruiting aggressively on college campuses throughout the United States with little opposition from Hillel or anyone else.

    May 4: Another "conspiracist" borrows from LaRouche. Winnipeg hate-monger Henry Makow is big on the Illuminati conspiracy, which LaRouche rarely mentions, yet agrees with Lyndon re the Frankfurt School, the Lucis Trust and the Rothschilds. And the hook-nosed Satanist illustration that accompanies Makow's article sends a message not much different from that embodied in the title of LaRouche's Children of Satan pamphlets, or in the "Rohatyn as Satan" banner displayed during a LaRouche Youth Movement march against New York banker and Holocaust refugee Felix Rohatyn.

    Makow's version of what LaRouche calls the "oligarchy"?

    May 4: Hollow Earther gets the point of LaRouche's fill-in-the-blanks conspiracy theory. LaRouche's followers may deny that when LaRouche warns against the "Synarchists," the "Venetians" or the "Anglo-Dutch" he's really talking about the Jews, but non-LaRouchian anti-Semites on the web--from the Stormfront crowd through Henry Makow and Jeff Rense through those occult-obsessed individuals who fancy Black Masses being performed in every synagogue--are often quick to decode LaRouche's pronouncements and incorporate the underlying message into their own ideological mishmashes.

    One such individual is "The Fetch," who posted the following on a May 2004 thread at the Barbelith discussion board, along with a link to the website of LaRouche's chief front group in Australia, the Citizens Electoral Council (CEC).

    "In order to understand the New World Order in the Jewish Synarchist model, one must first understand the nature of 'capital' and its effects on global markets.

    "Synarchism is a form of 'El' worship [El is a generic word for "god" in ancient Hebrew--DK] a belief in the supremacy of the Jewish god...A whole array of ritualistic channels are used....There are basically two components of Synarchism that one needs to be acquainted with: Martinis[m], a form of Free Masonry linking in to 'Mars' or Jehovian energy systems, and Zionism, which become manifest in the 'fake' Protocols of Zion and from which would spring Nazism....

    "The...hinge pin history of this movement can be found in the roots of Nazism, which will lead you back to 'satanists' (actually Hyper Jehovians) and Jewish Zionist founders."

    The Fetch, not himself being a LaRouchian, weaves in his own idiosyncratic obsessions: "The main 'El' component of [the Synarchist] system of thought is Noahidism, a pseudo-religious idea that Jews are the Master race and that mankind's only purpose is to be 'rectified' through submissive service to all adherents of 'El.'" [Read here about the Lubavitchers' Noahide's not sinister at all.] The Fetch also weaves in various fringe-of-the-fringe themes involving "Vril" (a mysterious energy source) and Admiral Byrd's alleged trip to a hidden land under Antarctica inhabited by an advanced civilization.

    The members of the freewheeling discussion board would probably have just shrugged off the Hollow Earth stuff with a few good-natured jokes, but the Fetch had picked the wrong place for peddling the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Other discussants lashed back at him in scores of postings, as this one by user name "Phex: Dorset Doom":

    "All we need now is to bring in shape-shifting Lizard-men, holocaust denial and a plea to wear tin-foil around our heads to stop the evil JewLizardCapitalistWorldOrder(TM) from stealing our thoughts...This is another disturbing example of the current growing anti-semitic trend in both occultism and radical politics, the creation of a Jewish bogeyman to explain away all the problems in the world."

    "Synarchist" lizard-man on the prowl

    This led to a general discussion of conspiracy theories, with "Rex Feral" asking:

    "Why does the observation that politicians are corrupt and lie ergo lead to the truth that the world is 'controlled'? If you think of the influences and pressure every politician is subject to--party funding, business sponsorship, in-party 'whips' and all the other groups they have to negotiate between--it’s no wonder that they are sometimes economical with the truth. I don’t see how or why this leads to the shadowy controllers or the New World Order."

    The Fetch later attempted a comeback using a LaRouche-style trick: "Jews are every bit a victim in this as are they who are 'not Jews,' and you have to marvel at the fact that you have to treat Jews as if they are a wholly seperate [sic] 'class' of being that is beyond any criticism whatsoever." But this argument fell flat, and Phex: Dorset Doom commented:

    "Fetch, as regards to your credibility: ask any journalist and they'll tell you that once a source on any particular matter lies or gives bad information, they lose any credibility they might have had. Within your first post you posited...that Nietzsche was Jewish and that the Earth is hollow and inhabited by super-people. The links you have been kind enough to post suffer from the same problem; the CEC puts you only a few clicks away from Lyndon LaRouche's bizarre (but strangely familiar) rant about the 'Pro-Satanic Pokemon Cult.'"

    Phex also asked: "Why does Lyndon LaRouche's name keep popping up in connection with this thread?"

    The larger question should be why (apart from the labors of the LaRouche org's tiny band of internet warriors) Lyndon's name keeps popping up on so many hate-oriented web sites as well as on benign discussion boards such as Barbelith. I suggest it's because LaRouche has been a sly, prolific and effective purveyor of anti-Semitism on a massive scale for over 30 years, and has also offered an elaborate ideological system from which readers can pick and choose. Portions of his viewpoint--especially of his conspiracy theories--have taken root in the minds of individuals who have their own agendas and would probably never join the LaRouche cult, but who see LaRouche as a validator of, and intellectual buttress for, their own preexisting viewpoint as well as their underlying anger and hate.

    It's all part of the process by which anti-Semitic theories and rhetoric (both coded and uncoded) have proliferated over the years: LaRouche himself adopted themes from Nesta Webster, "Cincinnatus," Eustace Mullins and others, and wove these conceptions into his "inner elites" theory. Today's web bigots, in turn, pick up LaRouche's conspiracism and weave it into their own imaginative scenarios. Throw into this bubbling pot the LaRouche-influenced offerings of conspiracy entrepreneurs such as John Coleman and Webster Tarpley, and you get Der Abscheulicher's "legacy" (for what it's worth). I'll be posting more examples.

    April 22: Full report on Wiesbaden protest meeting to demand German authorities investigate death of Jeremiah Duggan while attending LaRouche indoctrination school. "Dr Matthew Feldman, Senior History lecturer at Northampton College, revealed how the dissemination of anti-Semitic propaganda is even more dangerous when it takes on the coded form evident in the propaganda of the LaRouche organization. He was supported by all members of the family and ex-members panel who called upon the German authorities to take action....The families described how their sons and daughters were idealistic young people who were trapped in a dangerous web where they were misled with fraudulent conspiracies and how they were manipulated so that their capacities to detect the coded anti-Semitism went undetected."

    Unfortunately, the local police in Wiesbaden, the Hessen authorities and the BKA (German FBI) are still protecting the LaRouche org, while LaRouche has told his followers to keep their mouths shut or else. But all it would take is for one, just one, of the leaders of the German branch expelled by LaRouche in 2006 to come forward--and the unravelling of the official lies would begin.

    March 27, 2009 Wiesbaden meeting--six years to the day after Jeremiah's death.

    April 17: Traditional anti-Semitic conspiracists KNOW that "British" means Jewish in the LaRouchian lexicon. Here's a google listing, and the first page, of a 2007 article from LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review as republished on the Jew-baiting website run by Portland, OR talk show host Jeff Rense. The article bears the headline "British Hand Is Pushing Bush Into Iran War Trap." But look at the document title (the text that appears in the title bar at the top of the screen and in the google hit list) inserted by Rense: "Rothschild Zionists Pushing Bush To Attack Iran." And Rense even names the file "roth.htm." Significantly, the EIR version of the article does NOT include "Rothschild Zionists" but rather "British," as in the article's headline, and does NOT have "roth" in the file name (but rather "brit_war_trap"). One would think that if Rense had somehow distorted EIR's intent, the magazine would have complained and Rense would have restored the EIR document title. (The article is here with EIR version here.)

    Jeff Rense

    Rense has published many LaRouchian articles and press releases over the years; for instance a 2002 statement blaming 9/11 on the Jews (read here). As for himself, Rense claims, in a "Personal Statement from Jeff Rense," that he is "pro-Jewish" but also "anti-ZIONIST" (a trick LaRouche has also used on occasion). However, Rense gives the game away when he adds:

    ZIONIST neocons want to take YOUR Freedom of Speech away with their so-called "hate laws"...which they have successfully installed in nearly a dozen otherwise free countries of Europe (and Canada) with catastrophic results that have led to the imprisonment of free men who have dared express a simple opinion at odds with the Zionist hustle and their withering agenda of domination.

    ZIONISTS have no hesitation liquidating in a mass-death Holocaust any and all who attempt to question ZIONISM or call attention to its pathological efforts to impose total control on America. They want to "piss on your bones" after they murder you... (Read here or here.)

    And take a look at's version of Holocaust denial, saying that the "six million" deaths were all an invention by Soviet novelist Ilya Ehrenburg during World War Two:

    He was a notorious liar and a pathological monster. He was a Jew.

    As a leading member of the Soviet-sponsored Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, Ilya Ehrenburg appeared at fund-raising rallies in the United States, raising support for the Communist cause while displaying fake bars of soap allegedly manufactured by the Germans from the corpses of dead Jews.

    But Ehrenburg was perhaps most notorious for his viciously anti-German hate propaganda in World War II. In it, he exhorted Soviet troops to kill all Germans they encountered without pity.

    The allegations about Ehrenburg as a war propagandist that have circulated ever since World War Two (including the charge that he called on Soviet soldiers to rape Aryan women) are largely based on Nazi forgeries or on crude mistranslations of his sophisticated prose; see the Wikipedia discussion here. And who is spreading this stuff today (beside the Institute for Historical Review)? The article urges readers to go to NS Publications for more information. NS Publications is a neo-Nazi mail-order house in Wyandotte, MI which offers books that promote national socialism and "racial science."

    NS Publications poster

    The list of columnists includes Winnipeg anti-Semite Henry Makow, who occasionally decodes, and presents in a direct form, the artful formulations of the LaRouchians, while also showing a certain talent for inventing code words of his own; for instance in a column here (PDF here), which informs us that "'Modernity' is Satanism, i.e. the deification of Man, i.e. Rothschild Cabalist Man." (Cf. LaRouche's use of "Children of Satan" and "Beastmen.")

    Another columnist is "ex"-LaRouchian Webster Tarpley, who uses his column to bash LaRouche critic Chip Berlet ("that well-known gutter-dwelling character assassin," etc.) and defend insane conspiracy theories about 9/11 (read here). As of April 17, 2009 the topmost featured article was by another "ex"-LaRouchian, F. William Engdahl. Since the writings of Tarpley and Engdahl are strongly promoted on the website of the Argentinian neo-fascist "Movimiento Civico-Militar CONDOR" (here), I'm not surprised to see the two getting a boost from Jeff Rense as well.

    NOTE: Rense has a disclaimer on his site stating that he posts various items to uphold the "idea of a free press," that we shouldn't "make 'assumptions'" about his "official position on issues" and that he believes it "to be unwise to sweep controversy under the carpet." Sounds nice, but the Jan. 10, 2007 "Personal Statement from Jeff Rense" quoted above tells us EXACTLY what his "official position" is--that the "Zionists" are out to take away our Freedom of Speech and then kill us and piss on our bones. Given this position, I somehow can't believe that Rense is filling his website with anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi drivel for idealistic, freedom-loving motives.

    April 10: A Freemasonic researcher dissects the LaRouche movement's allegations against his fraternal order. "Lyndon LaRouche [makes] an accusation that British Freemasonry, under the control of the House of Windsor, is secretly plotting to gain control of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and build the third Temple. Like most attacks on Freemasonry, it can easily be debunked by identifying the errors in fact and logic." The author focuses mostly on a Nov. 3, 2000 article from EIR, pointing out outlandish charges that either contradict the documented facts or are not supported by reliable sources (or by any sources at all). As to the LaRouchian theory that the Freemasons and B'nai B'rith are plotting together, the author notes that this fantasy was also promoted by Nikolaus Markow in Der Kampf der dunklin Mächte (Frankfurt am Main: Welt-Dienst Verlag, 1944, p. 51). (For other possible sources of the LaRouche movement's obsession with Jews and Masons, see the writings of Erich Ludendorff, Leonard Young, Nesta Webster and Eustace Mullins--Jew haters all.

    COMMENT: The historic Freemasons whom LaRouche has pretended to revere at one time or another (without mentioning their Freemasonic affiliations) include George Washington, FDR, Benjamin Franklin and James Monroe (ex-LCers will remember LaRouche's drumbeats of praise for Monroe and the Monroe Doctrine during the spring of 1982 when the Argentine junta was paying the LC to stage demonstrations in support of the invasion of the Falklands by Col. Seineldin and the Virgin Mary). Franklin--an even greater hero than Seineldin in the LaRouchian pantheon--held the Freemasonic title of "Grand Master of Pennsylvania," an honorific that reminds me of former LaRouche security advisor Roy Frankhouser: the Grand Dragon of Pennsylvania (that's a KKK title, but since the LaRouchians claim the KKK was founded by Albert Pike, a Scottish Rite master, Frankhouser is a Mason by proxy...if you buy LaRouche's theory about Pike, which is not supported by any credible evidence).

    This Freemason was part of a British plot? Lyn, you gotta be kidding.

    Another notable Mason is Lyndon LaRouche himself--or at least he called himself one while courting the endorsement of African-American Masonic lodges during his 1979-80 Presidential campaign. LaRouche included a few of these Masons in lists of his supporters. I was working for Our Town at the time and called William V. Banks (now deceased), the founder of the International Free and Accepted Masons, to ask if the LaRouchians had bothered--when they met with him--to disclose their group's ties to the South African apartheid government or the KKK; Banks said they had not. FEC records would later show that LaRouche's 1980 campaign committee made substantial payments for advertising to a Detroit TV station owned by Banks.

    LaRouche's attacks on Freemasonry appear to have often been opportunistically motivated--sometimes to curry favor with rightwing Catholics and sometimes to impress anti-Semitic/fascist allies. The one anti-Masonic theme that seems to have a consistent place within his ideology is that the Masons are an instrument for brainwashing people into becoming agents of the "British" (Jewish) oligarchy. But here LaRouche extends the Jewish brainwashee concept, which he may have picked up from Erich Ludendorff (Hitler's co-leader during the Munich Beer Hall putsch who argued that Freemasonry is used by the Jews to turn gentiles into "artificial Jews") to embrace a vast number of secret and open societies and institutions (the Fabians, the Round Table, Oxford University, the Tavistock Institute, the Anglican church, various university anthropology departments, the New Age movement, etc.), with the Masons sometimes getting lost in the shuffle.

    The exceeding cleverness in LaRouche's version of rightwing conspiracy theory lies in his concept of the subterranean struggle of opposing elites, who operate via "tendencies" (a little influence of the SWP, Lyndon?) within every political party, government, cultural institution, and religious or ethnic movement. Thus if LaRouche wants to cozy up to a Mason--or someone in the Jewish community, or an aging Nazi war criminal, or the British lord whose public relations firm LaRouche hired to protect his reputation from the onslaughts of Jeremiah Duggan's mom--he can always say, oh, we only attack the bad (oligarchy-controlled) Masons, Nazis, Jews, etc.; we welcome alliances with humanistically inclined (he means proto-LaRouchian) members of these categories. This peekaboo tactic can also help LaRouche explain away embarrassing contradictions in his public pronouncements--like telling his followers to commit fundraising fraud because the great Franklin supposedly had committed similar acts to help win the Revolutionary War against the British, even though Franklin was a member of a fraternal order that LaRouche had previously described as evil, satanic and British-controlled.

    LaRouche uses the same idea to justify his psychological terror tactics against his followers. The ego-stripping process is brutal? Ah, but it's intended to liberate the higher potentiality of the targeted person's mind from the selfish, Jewish-mother-dominated side. And Ken Kronberg ended up committing suicide? Alas, he was a sad casualty of a beneficent attempt to liberate his golden soulhood from the influence of his LaRouche-hating wife, who was attempting to drag him down into subhuman beasthood.

    April 7: "They gassed mental defectives too." Secret British government tapes reveal that Nazi officer Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte (1907-1994)--who in his final decade would become a staunch supporter of Lyndon LaRouche--knew all about the Holocaust while serving in World War Two but still continued to fight enthusiastically for Hitler. The much-decorated paratroop colonel was captured during the Battle of the Bulge and ended up in a detention camp in England where he and other Third Reich officers were caught on tape discussing the mass killing of the Jews and other targets of Nazi racial hygiene methods, and gloating over it. The London Daily Mail reports: "At Trent Park, Colonel Dr Friedrich Von der Heydte told Colonel Eberhard Wildermuth about the Theresienstadt concentration camp in Czechoslovakia: 'Half a million people have been put to death there for certain. I know that all the Jews from Bavaria were taken there. Yet the camp never became over-crowded. They gassed mental defectives, too.' 'Yes, I know,' replied Wildermuth. 'I got to know that for a fact in the case of Nuremberg--my brother is a doctor at an institution there. The people knew where they were being taken.'" Von der Heydte was held in England until 1947 on suspicion of committing war crimes, but was never charged.

    Von der Heydte wearing the Iron
    Cross that his Fuehrer awarded him.

    April 3: The 1981 "Declaration of Independence" (from the tyranny of King Lyndon). This short but sweet statement of resignation by 117 members, mostly from Michigan but with many also from Texas, Illinois and Massachusetts, represented a stunning setback for LaRouche's efforts to build a nationwide movement. These individuals organized their move secretly over a period of months--right under the nose of LaRouche's security staff--to gain as much support as possible. LaRouche was enraged but could do nothing--the Detroit branch, almost all of whom signed the statement, had better ties to the Teamsters than he did. If any LaRouche Youth Movement members today are expressing a bit of an independent spirit by visiting Lyndon LaRouche Watch on the sly, I urge them to peruse this list. 117 people quitting, all at once! Maybe they had a REASON for what they did? Like a recognition that Lyn is not only tyrannical but also totally bonkers? Think about it.

    April 1: "Anti-Bolshevik Action in Argentina!" This article from The New Federalist, Dec. 9, 1988, is the ultimate in LaRouchian glorification of the sinister "dirty-war" commando leader Col. Mohamed Ali Seineldin. According to the article's author (who has since left the LaRouche org), the failed coup attempt the previous week by Seineldin and the Carapintadas ("Painted Faces") had been aimed at foiling a giant Moscow plot. In fact, Argentina was in no danger of communist revolution and had a democratically elected government on friendly terms with the United States. The coup leaders had more to fear from prosecutors looking into the military's crimes during the 1970s when tens of thousands of Argentinian leftists (most of them noncombatants) were raped, tortured and/or murdered during the junta's war against an undeniably violent, but relatively small-scale, insurgency.

    Seineldin in the Falklands, 1982.

    The second article in this file, "Charismatic Military Leader Behind Argentine Action" (also Dec. 9, 1988) praises Seineldin as a "stauch [sic] anti-communist" and a "devout Catholic." Says he calmed the waters for the Argentine invasion of the Falklands by appealing to the Virgin Mary, and that the sea became "clear as a mirror." (Unfortunately, the Virgin did nothing to stop the British Harrier jets several weeks later.) This adulatory article was written by Carlos Wesley, an intermediary in the LaRouche organization's dealings with Panamanian cocaine dictator Manuel Noriega in the 1980s. Seineldin served in Panama in the mid-1980s first as an Argentinian military attache and then as an advisor to the Panamanian Defense Forces, training them in "dirty war" tactics before returning to his own country to take command of the coup attempt. He almost certainly was in contact with the LaRouchians in Panama, which may be why the "Anti-Bolshevik" article described LaRouche as a "friend of Col. Seineldin." But the LaRouchians could have also met him in Argentina during the junta years when emissaries of LaRouche were treated as honored guests.

    I suspect LaRouche and some of his top aides had fantasies that if Seineldin seized power he would invite LaRouche down to Buenos Aires to be his economics adviser and would appoint the likes of Jeff Steinberg and Dennis Small to be security officials of his regime. (Maybe he'd even have given them land to build their own community to which he could have sent his enemies for interrogation, just as Chile's Pinochet sent prisoners to be tortured at the compound of the neo-Nazi Colonia Dignidad cult.) But LaRouchian fantasies aside, these two New Federalist articles are among the many HUNDREDS of examples from LaRouche's publications (read dozens of them here) that refute the delusional claim by certain ex-LaRouche followers that LaRouche is just some kind of weird leftist and that he--and they--were never, never, never sympathizers of any brand of fascism.

    April 1: John Flannery's dossier on the LaRouche organization (1986). Flannery is a former federal prosecutor and special counsel to the U.S. Senate who ended up as one of the attorneys for LaRouche's followers in Commonwealth of Virginia vs. Richard Freeman et al., a case that resulted in several defendants being convicted of securities fraud. Earlier, however, according to a 1987 Stipulation of Facts in the case (to which Flannery's dossier, in the form of a chronological outline, is appended), Flannery had met with Loudoun County Sheriff John Isom to exchange information about the LaRouchians, who had become a source of great annoyance for the county's ordinary citizens, and had expressed an interest in being appointed as special prosecutor on the case. During this meeting, Flannery presented Isom with a photocopy of the dossier, which he had prepared--according to the Stipulation--"for reasons and purposes not related to the meeting." I have highlighted several items from the chronology that I found amusing or of substantive interest.

    John Flannery, Esq.

    The most important item describes the LaRouchians' 1982 effort to defend U.S. Labor Secretary Ray Donovan--then under investigation for alleged connections to organized crime--by seeking damaging information on the Senate investigators, and suggests that LaRouche's minions did find embarrassing information about at least one Senate staffer. Flannery himself had been appointed by Senate Labor Committee chair Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) to investigate the Donovan confirmation hearings, so he would know whereof he speaks.

    For more on the LaRouchians and the Donovan probe, go to Chapter 38 of Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, where I discuss how LaRouche security chief Jeff Steinberg had made inquiries about the outside Special Prosecutor's investigation of Donovan, and especially about whether a former official of Tony Provenzano's Teamster Local 560 named Fred Furino was cooperating with the probe--shortly thereafter, Furino was found dead in a car trunk. Roy Frankhouser once told me Paul Goldstein did it. I flatly don't believe this--and only mention it because today is April Fool's day--although Goldstein may have tried to give Frankhouser that impression (the two were always bullshitting each other). But certainly some of the LaRouchians were trying to dabble in the mob world during that period; for information on the Genovese crime family associates and other thugs they were in contact with, go to Gangsters, Inc.'s web page re the New York mob of the "Roaring 1970s" era.

    March 31: More hypocrisy on abortion from LaRouche's so-called Club of Life. Pro-life report to COL conference in Wiesbaden, Germany (2001) by LaRouche follower who seems oblivious to the fact that the cult had coerced its own members into having hundreds of abortions over the previous quarter century. At the time of this report, most of LaRouche's Boomers were past the child-bearing age, but the cult was already pressuring newly-recruited LaRouche Youth Movement (LYM) members to undergo abortions. In effect, the European Boomers who participated in the COL conference were helping to create a deceptive cover that would facilitate the cult's ongoing practice of forced abortion, with lasting emotional trauma for LYM women. [Commentary by Dennis King blames Janet Reno, Clinton's attorney general, for allowing LaRouche's early release from prison, which enabled him to crack down on the trend that had developed among his followers during his incarceration, of families giving birth to or adopting children--a trend that might have led to the cult's dissolution if the DOJ had kept LaRouche where he belonged.]

    March 30: How LaRouche hired a New England mobster to help with his 1980 Presidential campaign. NBC-TV correspondent Mark Nykanen testifies about his meeting with George Kattar ("Cator" in the transcript), a self-described coin dealer and real estate investor in Salem, New Hampshire [whose business was known locally as "Piranha, Inc."--DK]. Nykanen describes his interview with Kattar: "He said that he was approached by Lyndon LaRouche and about a dozen or so of his, and these are his words now, gun-toting followers. Said they had all kinds of guns on them. They came in and they said, you know, we're running in this election [the New Hampshire Democratic primary], we need your help." In addition, Nykanen outlines his evidence--including Congressional testimony by a former mobster--that Kattar was an associate of the New England-based Patriarcha crime family.

    George Kattar, CEO of Piranha, Inc.

    March 30: LaRouche testifies on his favorite subject--Elizabeth Windsor. LaRouche's followers on Wikipedia flatly deny that Der Abscheulicher ever called Queen Elizabeth a drug pusher. But in 1984, LaRouche himself admitted--in testimony under oath in federal court--to having said exactly that. And don't be confused by his qualification that he made the accusation in a "specific context." ALL human statements are made in a specific context.

    March 28: Swimming in the sea of Germany's far right? Evidence of a murky relationship between LaRouche and the German neo-Nazi Ekkehard Franke-Gricksch, described here as "a kind of Willis Carto" (a reference to the founder of the U.S. Holocaust Denial movement). I took this bit of esoterica (apparently part of ongoing research) from Factnet and added pictures.

    March 22: A pattern begins to reveal itself. Forced abortion is not just a quirk of the LaRouche movement, but is the policy of other cults as well--and may be a public health concern on a wider scale than anyone has suspected. Here, added to our menu of items on abortion in the LaRouche org, are examples from Scientology, Social Therapy, other groups...with more to come.

    March 20: Erica Duggan and her supporters will march right into the enemy camp! Details on public meeting to be held in Wiesbaden, Germany on Friday, March 27 at the Crowne Plaza, 11 am to 1 pm. Wiesbaden is the city where Erica's son Jeremiah died under unexplained circumstances, the city where the LaRouche organization has its European headquarters, the city from whence the LaRouche organization targets youth throughout Germany with anti-Semitic hate propaganda (in violation of the nation's Basic Law) and the city where the police department looks the other way whenever its favorite fascist cult does anything suspicious. Will LaRouche's thugs try to break up Erica's meeting or the memorial march to the site where Jeremiah's body was found? Will the cops stand by and let the LaRouchians engage in violence? SPREAD THE NEWS ABOUT THIS MEETING ON BLOGS AND MESSAGE BOARDS. EMAIL IT Y0UR FRIENDS IN THE MEDIA. LET THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT KNOW THAT THE WORLD WILL BE WATCHING!


    Site where Jeremiah Duggan's body was found.


    We invite the PRESS and the Wiesbaden PUBLIC!

    Fri., March 27, 2009, 11 am - 1 pm

    CROWNE PLAZA (Conference room: BACH)
    Bahnhofstr. 10
    65185 Wiesbaden, Germany

  • Before our Berlin Conference last fall, acts of intimidation and defamation were aimed to muzzle the Press by those not wanting to respect our right as citizens to examine publicly the dangers.

  • Other events on this day will honour the memory of Jeremiah Duggan, who died in Wiesbaden six years ago.

    For more information: .

  • March 16: Lyndon LaRouche, you're no Eisenhower. The blogger named "European" provides more evidence of the need for rest for combat troops, plus a description of how he came to realize the insanity of the Labor Committee's fantasy war-mobilization cycle (little sleep and lots of work, seven days a week).

    NOTE: LaRouche used to dream about having his own military forces (the U.S. Army plus the German Army under "neo-Platonic humanist" rule) and a Christmas stocking full of chemical, bacteriological and nuclear weapons (not to speak of the package under the tree: cobalt bombs that would spread the radiation eastward with giant fans). Good thing for the Germans that this Drang nach Osten was all just pie in the sky: LaRouche's exhausted troops--hallucinating from lack of sleep--would probably have dropped the bombs or released the microbes on the wrong side of the border.

    March 15: "We're at war!" Ex-LCer "European" comments on the nonstop pseudo-military hysteria in the LaRouche movement--and the rigorous "14/7" work schedules that are imposed on recruits. Points out the disconnect between these schedules and the realities of real warfare. [Lyndon LaRouche Watch adds a quote from General Dwight D. Eisenhower.]

    March 12: Forced abortions were common in Scientology as well as in the LaRouche movement. Affidavit of Mary Tabayoyon, Aug. 26, 1994. Ms. Tabayoyon was a member of Scientology's Sea Org, a tightly disciplined inner cadre of the church. She states that Sea Org women "were forbidden to have any more children if they were to stay on post and the Hubbard technology was applied to coercively persuade us to have abortions....[We were told] that we had the responsibility on our shoulders for the expansion of Scientology and freeing mankind....We, at this high level, could not afford the time and resources it would take to raise children. Having children was found to undermine our production and our purpose." Also describes the harsh punishment dished out to Sea Org women, after their abortions, for getting pregnant in the first place. Says that the abortions--possibly many dozens of them--were performed at a single Planned Parenthood clinic.

    L. Ron Hubbard's good ship "Apollo": When it was in port,
    the Sea Org slaves were marched to the abortion clinic.

    March 10: Pressure to have abortions in the Swedish branch of LaRouche's movement. A former member who was active in the European wing from the 1980s into the 2000s, recalls (in a posting on his new "Why Lyndon LaRouche is a fraud!" blog) that when a woman in the Swedish leadership gave birth in 1986, "the response of Helga Zepp-LaRouche was 'if they feel lonely they should get a dog instead of a child.'" The blogger sums up Helga and Lyn's underlying policy: "To have children is expensive, they would have to be fed and encouraged to develop....The CAUSE, the 24/7 warlike mobilization for the future of mankind is the only thing that matters...."

    March 10: "LaRouche's revolution devours its children." Molly Kronberg describes Der Abscheulicher's opposition to his followers becoming parents: "It was okay for his wife Helga to fly her dogs to and fro, and feed them steak...but it was regarded as indolent opulence to waste money and food on a baby." Yet when members of the Labor Committee defied LaRouche and had families anyway, LaRouche simply tried to recruit the kids as a new generation of cult slaves. Mrs. Kronberg says she told her son, when he was growing up, that if anyone tried to recruit him to the LaRouche Youth Movement, he should say "I'm not joining any organization that tried to have me aborted."

    Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Steak for her
    dogs, poverty for the cult's rank and file.

    March 9: Did LaRouche mimic German ultranationalists of the 1950s when he formed the "Schiller Institute"? Excerpts here from Kurt Tauber's monumental Beyond Eagle and Swastika (1967) describe how Nazi poet Herbert Böhme formed the radical nationalist Schillerbund Deutschland and its youth group, the Schiller League of German Youth. Tauber jokes about how Böhme liked to hold conferences on the Klüt, a mountain that was the traditional haunt of the Pied Piper. LaRouche, certainly a Pied Piper of sorts for contemporary European and American youth, would later form both the Schiller Institute for adults and the LaRouche Youth Movement (LYM), which is referred to sometimes by German LaRouchians as the LaRouche Jugend. Jeremiah Duggan, a Jewish university student from the U.K., was invited by members of the LYM to attend the 2003 Schiller Institute conference in Bad Schwalbach--and ended up dead.

    Tauber's two-volume masterpiece is rich in examples of German far-right use in the two decades after World War Two of euphemisms, peekaboo phrases and cryptic framings (examples here include the code words "Morgenthauism" for Jewish influence, "Third Nation" for Third Reich, "period of fate" for the years of Nazi rule, and "spiritual freedom" for extreme nationalism/revanchism). A careful reader will discern that these tricks are not very different from the ones LaRouche began using in the late 1970s and still employs today.

    The great Kurt Tauber, Professor
    Emeritus of Williams College.

    March 9: How LaRouche's "Club of Life" suckered a distinguished Colombian. The Feb. 22, 1983 issue of LaRouche's EIR included a translation of an article that had appeared earlier that month in leading Colombian newspapers. The byline given was that of "Jaime Sanin Cheverri" (journalist, academic and man of letters Jaime Sanín Echeverri, 1922-2008). Sanín hails Lyndon and Helga LaRouche and their Club of Life for fighting against the population-control-oriented Club of Rome. He alleges that the Club of Rome, with its "incomparable financial power," has "spread propaganda for and practiced contraception, sterilization of females and males, abortion, and ultimately, the most sinister plans to assassinate the elderly and the handicapped." He contrasts this supposedly evil organization with the "men and women of the Club of Life [who] offer a promising future for all mankind."

    Doubtless Sanín was unaware of the LaRouche organization's hypocritical practice of enforced abortion within its own ranks and its predatory financial practices targeting the elderly (much less its exploitation of the handicapped). EIR's introduction to the article describes Sanín as a "close friend of President Belisario Betancur" (Belisario Betancur Cuartas, b. 1923, was Colombia's president from 1982-86). If the two were in fact close, Betancur appears not to have been influenced by Sanín's enthusiasm for LaRouche. Betancur is currently (as of 2009) the vice-president of the Club of Rome for Latin America. As to the Club of Life, it no longer exists. LaRouche purged the Catholics and other Christians from his organization and moved on to "fresh scams and con games new."

    Feb. 27: LaRouche's ban on children. Comments by "xlcr4life" on Molly Kronberg's "forced abortion" article. "A few years ago, Lyn waltzed through the Leesburg office and declared that he was a grandfather as his son's wife had just given birth....People who were there could not help but see the looks of disgust and pain on the faces of many LC women who had to hear that from Lyn." Article also deals with the problems of parents who defied LaRouche to have kids, only to have their children funneled years later into the hellish LaRouche Youth Movement.

    Feb. 26: "Forced abortion" in the LaRouche cult: Molly Kronberg gives the full story. Widow of Ken Kronberg and mother of Max discusses the devastating effect of LaRouche's abortion-or-else policy on many women in the cult. Describes a "particularly ghastly forced abortion" that involved "one of the most extreme cases of psychological abuse I have ever seen." And the rationale? "We were told that Plato didn't believe in generating children of the body, but children of the mind. Aside from the fact that Socrates had children, this was about as malevolent as you can get--invoking Plato to try to stampede someone into aborting a baby."

    Feb. 26: The ultimate hypocrisy on abortion. Here's a 1983 pamphlet of LaRouche's Club of Life (COL). Note highlighted passages that show how the LaRouchians tried to pose as part of the Right to Life movement. The "Founding Principles" section states that "human life must be defended from the time of conception..." The "highlights" section includes a description of a Jan. 2003 COL conference held in Madrid, supposedly with the participation of Right to Life activists; this was at the same time the LaRouchians were lobbying the Spanish security forces to set up the anti-Basque death squads out of which "Operation Mengele" would emerge (read here).

    Feb. 26: And look who was in charge of LaRouche's so-called right to life group. This pamphlet (which again affirms that life must be defended from the "time of conception") shows that the Club of Life's U.S. chairperson was none other than Nancy Spannaus, who has been identified by Molly Kronberg and others as playing a key role in enforcing the "abortion or else" policy in the LaRouche cult. Furthermore, the pamphlet lists Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Ms. Spannaus's role model--see Kronberg article above) as the COL's founder. Note Spannaus's wacko article in which she accuses the average citizens of the developed world (brainwashed of course by a cabal of international bankers) of being willing to "pull the plug" on their own grandmothers. At the time this was published, the LaRouche organization had already begun a huge fundraising campaign that would result in their stealing the life savings of grandmothers all over the United States. Spannaus also complains about the public's alleged acquiescence in "euthanasia, suicide, and withdrawal of medical treatment from 'marginal' people." Yet in more recent years it has been LaRouche, with the help of his wife and Ms. Spannaus, who has withheld decent medical care from his own aging followers, whom he now regards as worthless burnouts. And it was LaRouche who suggested in 2007 that these boomers--especially Ken Kronberg--might as well commit suicide.

    Club of Life's Nancy Spannaus. Note the
    Elizabeth Clare Prophet-style New Age
    aura/halo around her head in this electoral
    campaign photo. Helga LaRouche,
    I suspect, was not amused.

    Feb. 26: Hundreds of abortions at LaRouche's command. Ex-LCers speak out about how the right of LaRouchian women to choose life was underminded by a system of control involving psychological abuse, ostracism, even beatings. This is the full menu of old and new files on this website re forced abortion in the cult of Der Abscheulicher.

    Jan. 10: More evidence that LaRouche can be held responsible in a civil case for the deaths of Kronberg and Duggan. In a rare internal document, "The Present Internal Situation," written at a high point (March 1974) in his initial experiments with ego-stripping, LaRouche admits that the challenges he posits may result in individuals falling into psychological conditions that lead toward "disassociation and possible paranoid-schizophrenic episodes." Says that the org must "accept the danger of casualties." Says "[d]on't be terrified by such casualties when they occur." And: "It is better to die than to let the bastards turn one into a zombie." By this logic, I guess LaRouche thinks he did Ken Kronberg a favor, 33 years later, by driving him to suicide and thus preventing him from becoming a zombie for Molly, the Republican Party, Dick Cheney, et al.

    NOTE: LaRouche, as usual, couches his language somewhat ambiguously. For instance he predicts the org will suffer "hideous casualties" among members "notably vulnerable to brainwashing." Does he just mean brainwashing by the CIA or the KGB? Not bloody likely: The only "brainwashing" methods his followers ever experienced were the ego-stripping sessions and inducements to organizational hysteria that LaRouche himself orchestrated. And, in this remarkable document, he gives us a pretty good idea of exactly how and why he's doing it (note the references to the need to raise more money to save the human race from extinction).

    Ken Kronberg: just another "casualty" in
    LaRouche's war against personal demons?

    Dec. 23 (2008): "I Was a Drone for Lyndon LaRouche," by Anonymous. "When I first joined it was the custom to give one night off a week plus Sunday, but for the last few years it was seven days a week with no pretense of providing time to foster the intellectual development of the membership."

    Dec. 22: "T'was the night before Christmas and Lyndon was snoring/But no dreams of sugarplums: that would be boring..." To see what LaRouche REALLY wants for Christmas, follow this link.

    Dec. 18: Ex-LaRouche follower tells how to construct a conspiracy theory about your enemies in one easy lesson. "When the party is over with a person or group, then you can use the six degrees of separation principal to show how they were part of an all-encompassing evil conspiracy since the time the first primitive humans took a baby step."

    Dec. 18: "The sad tale of Jeremiah Duggan." From Muxuyou's Blog (Dec. 16, 2008): "Whereas most of us would have left the weirdly named 'Schiller Institute'...when the bizarre political diatribes began...including blaming the Iraq war on 'the Jews,' Duggan stood up and proclaimed: 'But I'm a Jew!' Wasn't there someone in the room with the remnants of a conscience who told him that he should get the fuck out of there for his own safety? Apparently not or he wouldn't have died under extremely suspicious circumstances."

    Dec. 18: The children of the LaRouche cult. "It had never occurred to me the great paradox that must forever live in a LaRouchie-parented child's mind: If Lyndon LaRouche had not been in prison, they would never have been born."

    Dec. 18: Leaving the LaRouche cult. "I had to 'hit bottom' with LaRouche before I could even begin to steer clear of the wreckage my life had become; unfortunately, this appears to be the only way out of a cult--just to be honest with yourself about the desperation of your own personal situation and to walk into a counseling center or police station and ask for help getting out."

    Dec. 18: LaRouche admits that ego-stripping is an extremely dangerous psychological method. Here is how he puts it in Beyond Psychoanalysis (1973): "Since the analyst [psychoanalyst] is unable to offer his subject a mass-movement orientation in which to locate a new, positive social identity, if the analyst were concerned to strip away the persona, the result would be FREQUENT PSYCHOSES AND SUICIDES among the individuals so stripped of those protective illusions which hide from them the emptiness of their individual qua individual lives." (emphasis added)

    But if psychoanalysts--medical doctors with years of specialized psychiatric training--do not practice such a dangerous method, why is it okay for LaRouche, who has no mental health credentials whatsoever, to employ it? LaRouche suggests that he, unlike the psychoanalysts, can offer the ego-stripped victim an alternative to psychosis and suicide, i.e., the reconstruction of his or her personality on socialist lines and as part of a mass movement.

    And he states, in his usual turgid prose: "Because the activity of socialist groups is task-oriented toward attempting to explore and remove bourgeois ideology, and since the psychodynamics of ideology are only the more general form for the psychodynamics of neurosis, the intellectual preoccupations of the socialist profession properly impel the movement, however reluctantly, to converge upon much of the work of psychoanalysis in that respect."

    NOTE: LaRouche used pithier language to state his intent in an August 1973 speech, the transcript of which was circulated as an internal document: "I will...destroy your rabbit-holes, mental as well as physical. I shall destroy your sense of safety in the place to which you ordinarily imagine you can flee. I shall not pull you back from fleeing, but rather destroy the place to which you would attempt to flee." ("The Politics of Male Impotence"; read it HERE.)

    Dec. 14: How to recruit a slave for LaRouche. A former member reveals the basic techniques: "So the mama's boy who's never done anything in his life is going to come here and say 'Alex made some homosexual kid cry and I want my mommy'...are you homosexual, Frank? Is that it? Is that why you haven't been able to raise any money out there?"

    Dec. 12: "The Little Boy Who Never Was," by Michael Scott Winstead (from Factnet, 2004). An account of one of the hundreds of cases of enforced abortion in the LaRouche cult: "And they pushed her tearfully into the car, and into the clinic, and they signed her consent forms, and they had her child vacuumed out of her."

    Dec. 11: Want to know why LaRouche keeps harping on the theme that Jeremiah Duggan's parents are part of a Fabian Society plot? Read here an early LaRouche attack (1976) on the venerable U.K. social-democratic intellectual circle in which he makes it crystal clear that he thinks the Fabians are a policy-connivance, dirty-tricks and intellectual contamination operation controlled by the Rothschild family--or, as he would call the latter in The Case of [the Jew] Walter Lippmann the following year, "the British (Rothschilds)." And note LaRouche's use of the term "fungus-cultures," which foreshadows his current employment of the epithet "slime-mold" to characterize the conspiracy against himself that he claims the Duggans, the Fabian Society, Tony Blair, Dick and Lynne Cheney and the "British" bankers are all part of.

    Dec. 9: Anyone who's thinking of quitting the LaRouche Youth Movement should read this. Chaim, a young person who left shortly after 9-11, found that the LaRouchians were totally unable to acknowledge that he had developed real doubts and disagreements. Instead, they insisted he was just "blocking." How could they have done otherwise? To acknowledge that legitimate doubts are possible would have undermined "LaRouche's image and infallibility."

    Dec. 9: LaRouche and the suicide of the Freedom Rider. In The Power of Reason, his 1979 autobiography, LaRouche describes an odd incident in the early 1960s that may shed light on how he would later respond to the suicide of Ken Kronberg and the death of Jeremiah Duggan.

    LaRouche claims that he began--during a period of increasing tension with his first wife--to provide "personal counseling" to a troubled young man named Griswold, a former Freedom Rider. After a number of visits, Griswold was making progress...until, supposedly, LaRouche's wife intervened. "An intruded household scene, during which [she] carelessly included savage complaints against my 'uncompensated' help to Griswold, so profoundly disturbed him that I never heard from him again--until being informed, some months later, of his suicide." LaRouche alleges that the news of Griswold's death killed his "last strong feeling" for his marriage and helped to establish in him "a deepening ruthlessness toward any aspect of personal life which corrupted the dictate of conscience in respect to the duties of public life."

    The wise mentor (with his pipe as stage prop).

    Is there a pattern here? LaRouche serves as a mentor to a younger man. When the latter commits suicide, LaRouche blames his own wife and develops a new "ruthlessness" regarding the primacy of the political over the personal. Years later, LaRouche becomes a ruthless (to say the least) mentor to another young man who, after decades of service to LaRouche, commits suicide. LaRouche blames the suicide's wife. And then there's the young man who decides he doesn't want LaRouche to be his mentor at all--he ends up dead, LaRouche claims this death was a suicide, and blames the young man's mother.

    Thus we have three suicides (real or alleged), three witch-women--and a completely innocent (if ruthless) Lyndon! I leave the explanation of all this to the psychiatrists, but I do have two final questions: Why did LaRouche, a college dropout with no mental health credentials, undertake to serve as a counselor to Griswold? And why did LaRouche, in later years, having earned no credentials in the interim, presume to practice the "ruthless" form of therapy known as ego-stripping on other young people, many of them possibly as troubled as Griswold had been?

    Dec. 9: The LaRouche movement's view of the suicide of Arthur Koestler (1983). Anyone who wants to understand why LaRouche suggested in April 2007 that Ken Kronberg kill himself--and why LaRouche and his followers behaved in such a callous (indeed, sadistic) manner towards the Kronberg family after Ken went out and did it--will find a partial explanation here, in the sick "humor" of this editorial from LaRouche's New Solidarity, March 14, 1983.

    The anonymous editorial writer, in commenting on the double suicide of the eminent Jewish author (referred to euphemistically as a "Hungarian-emigré intelligence agent for the British") and his wife Cynthia, says the "world might benefit if a selected few took the Koestlers as a heroic example." The editorialist then fantasizes about various fitting modes of suicide for Jews and non-Jews hated by the LaRouche organization: Henry Kissinger, Nancy Kissinger, Paul Volcker, Swiss banker Fritz Leutwiler, and Club of Rome founder Aurelio Peccei (the latter, it is suggested, should turn his body over "to the local dogfood manufacturer"). And then: "We could go further, but why should the worthwhile vast majority of the human race settle for attempts to solve its antisocial problems on a case-by-case basis? Why not get organized to settle with such characters all at once?"

    Oh, and readers should note the emphasis on husband-wife suicide: first, the real-life example of the Koestlers; second, the fantasy example of the Kissingers. There's an eerie parallel here to what the LaRouchian troll "revenire" has been saying on blogs recently: that Molly Kronberg should join her husband (and Jeremiah Duggan) on the "jumper brigade." Hmmmm...I wonder if revenire's IP address can be traced back to the environs of Round Hill, Virginia...

    Dec. 8: Ex-followers of LaRouche blast his insults to Jeremiah Duggan's mom and his attempts to evade any responsibility for Jeremiah'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?"

    These postings from Factnet (with footnotes by D. King) also express outrage over LaRouche's attempts to block any new probe of what happened to Jeremiah. The postings are by three ex-members (and a close relative of a current longtime member) who possess in the aggregate over 50 years of experience 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.

    Dec. 1: Blood libel, anyone? This illustration appeared in "Rockefeller's Fascism with a Democratic Face," the book-length article that comprised the Nov.-Dec. 1974 issue of LaRouche's theoretical magazine The Campaigner. I don't know the original provenance of the drawing, but within the editorial context of the "Rockefeller" Campaigner (and given the dynamics of the LaRouche organization at the time), I think it is a clear expression of anti-Semitic paranoia--and note the hooked nose on the biggest of the four banker-vampires.

    As of 1974 the LaRouche organization still employed a Marxist and "anti-fascist" rhetoric of sorts, but the main emphasis in the Rockefeller Campaigner was on attacking international financiers and speculators in a manner redolent of post-World War One fascism and national socialism. And LaRouche had already published his notorious footnotes to the "Feuerbach" Campaigner (Dec. 1973) attacking the Jews (with nary a protest from his followers) as merchant-usurers who lack a "Christian conscience" and alleging that their culture is "merely the residue left...after everything saleable has been marketed to the Goyim" (read here).

    In addition, the May 1974 Campaigner had started the practice of labeling the British and U.S. troops who fought against Hitler as being an "SS," with the implication that the crimes of the German SS were, well, not good, but at least no worse than those of the Allies. (The cover of the May 1974 issue even depicted Hitler's great foe Winston Churchill as a 1930s Bugsy Siegel-style gangster; see here.) And the "SS"-ness of the Allied military was blamed, in part, on one of LaRouche's earliest Symbolic Evil Jews: the psychologist Kurt Lewin, a refugee from Nazism whom LaRouche depicts as having had almost demonic powers for brainwashing individuals and the masses.

    Kurt Lewin (1890-1947): LaRouche's
    symbolic evil Jewish psychologist.

    Thus LaRouche's National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC) was already well on its way to effecting the cognitive inversion of reality in which the Jews are seen as Nazis "100 times worse" than the German ones, and the latter are regarded as having been Jewish puppets (i.e., shadow Nazis who were neo-Platonic reflections of the Jewish ones) or, by their fight against the British, as objectively ANTI-NAZI (because the British, and Adolf Hitler, were supposedly under the control of Jewish oligarchs plotting to kill billions of people, not just millions). The full development of this lunacy was still a couple of years off, but the grotesque illustration of human-blood-quaffing bankers in the "Rockefeller" Campaigner shows where the NCLC was already headed.

    And I should add that Daniel S. Messinger, today a developmental psychologist at the University of Miami, was absolutely right when, after interviewing ex-LaRouchians in the early 1980s as a University of Chicago graduate student, he concluded in a lengthy study that the psychosocial aspects of the LaRouche movement had been essentially fascist in character from the early 1970s on. Belated kudos to Messinger for thinking outside the box--and discerning the reality beneath the rhetoric.

    Dec. 1: LaRouche's fixation on damage control. After posting the NCLC chairman's 1973 statement about how ego-stripping sometimes creates "a bit of a mess to be cleaned up" (Nov. 29 item directly below), I received a tip from "eaglebeak," an ex-LaRouche follower with many sources inside the cult's headquarters in Leesburg, about Lyndon's more recent use of such terminology. It would appear that Der Abscheulicher's cynical disregard for the well-being (or even the physical survival) of his followers has remained unchanged over the decades.

    Nov. 29: Was Jeremiah Duggan, to LaRouche, just "a bit of a mess to be cleaned up"? In his Beyond Psychoanalysis treatise (The Campaigner, Sept.-Oct. 1973), Der Abscheulicher reveals his disdain for the psychological crises triggered in young recruits by "ego stripping" group-confrontation sessions, and also admits that he is fully aware of the dangers involved in the use of such tactics.

    In the final five-page section ("The Psychology of Mass Organizing"; excerpted here from the pamphlet version published in late 1973), LaRouche describes in detail his theory of how "bourgeois ideology" can be destroyed in the minds of both his "petty-bourgeois" intellectual cadre and his hoped-for working-class recruits through ego "stripping and rebuilding processes." Suggests that he can overcome the "neurotic bourgeois deformations of the personality of the individual cadres." Discusses, within a Marxist framework, the problem of how to use psychological confrontation to remold the personalities of "worker contacts." (Since LaRouche has long since jettisoned Marxism and now focuses on building an elitist youth movement, the reader should translate "worker contacts" circa 1973 into "youth contacts" circa 2008.)

    LaRouche provides us with his first zinger on p. 51: "He [the practitioner of ego stripping] succeeds in either organizing or estranging worker-contacts on the basis of induced heteronomic rage. (Either way, the organization is thus confronted with a bit of a mess to be cleaned up.)"

    DK: I would like to be sitting in U.S. federal court (civil division) during a future trial of Lyn and Helga LaRouche for violating Jeremiah Duggan's civil rights--and listening as the Duggan family's attorney asks Lyn what a "bit of a mess to be cleaned up" means, and whether LaRouche disciple Jean Gabriel Maheo manifested an "induced heteronomic rage" towards Jeremiah in Wiesbaden, Germany during the early morning hours of March 27, 2003.

    The second zinger is found on p. 52 in LaRouche's discussion of "clinical group confrontations" within his movement. He writes: "The hazard in utilizing the powerful concentrated social forces of an entire organization to effect forced [!!!] therapy ought to be more or less obvious." He describes how his movement had experimented with this methodology during a "preliminary period of several weeks of intensive sessions by member groups in the U.S.A. and Western Europe." He boasts that these sessions occurred with "an absolute minimum of instances of neurotic episodes in individual participants," but then admits in the next sentence that success had been achieved "[d]espite the disturbing, although much-reduced incidence of neurotic behaviors..."

    LaRouche pays lip service to such hazards by suggesting that ego-stripping methods should be conducted only "under rigorous control of qualified leading individuals..." Nevertheless, he writes, "the approximation of clinical group confrontations within the limits of clear and restricted task-orientations is absolutely mandatory."

    DK: I would like to be present when the Duggans' attorney in the above-predicted civil rights suit asks LaRouche why ego-stripping of ANY sort should have been made "mandatory"? And what constitutes a "qualified" practitioner? And what training are such individuals given? And who provides the training and then makes the decision that a particular person is qualified--LaRouche himself? And what gives LaRouche--a man with only a high school education and no experience whatsoever in the mental health field--the capability to provide such training and make such decisions?

    Nov. 20: The thuggery of LaRouche's Wiesbaden gang goes way, way back. "Earnest One," a close relative of a long-time LaRouche activist, tells of his own nasty encounter with the group's recruiters at a conference in Wiesbaden in the late 1970s. Says they told him that if he didn't agree to join up they'd do serious physical harm to his relative. "I was carted off to a room where a team...kept me sleep deprived for six straight days as they conducted one of their infamous ego-stripping sessions." Earnest One draws on this experience to create a fictional scenario of how a cult recruitment process gone wrong might result in a victim such as Jeremiah Duggan dying in a "state of terror." The insights of Earnest One are offered in the course of an online debate with the most annoying LaRouche apologist one is ever likely to meet online or anywhere else.

    Nov. 11: Have the LaRouchians no shame? Vicious Executive Intelligence Review attack on Jeremiah Duggan's mom. The following appeared in EIR, Dec. 15, 2006: "In reviewing the ongoing smear campaign, LaRouche raised a pointed question in the light of Erica Duggan's obsessive, aggressive campaign: What did Jeremy's mother say to her son in the phone conversation which they had right before he ran out to commit suicide? It has been well documented that Jeremy was a deeply disturbed youth, who had already been treated by the Tavistock Clinic as a child, after the breakup of his parents' marriage. Erica Duggan's behavior has all the earmarks of a guilt-ridden parent, whose own neurosis is being used by those political forces wishing to harm the LaRouche movement. LaRouche asked: What ugly secret is Erica Duggan trying to cover up? What did she say to Jeremy? That is the question the media should be raising..."

    DK: Once again, LaRouche can't get Jeremiah's name right (hey, Lyndon, even Eichmann kept careful records of the names of the Jews HE killed). Note also that the suggestion that Mrs. Duggan somehow triggered her son's death foreshadows LaRouche's use of the exact same argument four months later re the suicide of Ken Kronberg--that it was something Molly Kronberg did or said, not LaRouche's own explicit suggestion to Ken, which triggered the printer's leap from a highway overpass.

    Nov. 8: Parents from across the world speak out against LaRouche's exploitation of their loved ones. Detailed statements re the LaRouche Youth Movement's effect on recruits: sudden personality changes...robotic mouthing of slogans...anger and hysteria...delusional thinking...separation from family and friends...the abandonment of university studies, career goals and personal dreams to join LaRouche's all-consuming crusade against an imaginary global conspiracy.

    Nov. 7: A discussion among ex-followers of LaRouche: Is he responsible for Jeremiah Duggan's death? "The LAST thing you want at a [LaRouche conference] is a Jeremiah Duggan asking questions...In the crazy world of LaRouche profiling, a British Jew who knows about Tavistock and just called your group's views on Jews and Tavistock crazy is not going to be high on the friendly list."

    Nov. 7: "Jewish Student's Death in Germany Was Murder, Experts Say," Arutz Sheva (Israel), Nov. 2. "Although Jeremiah's blood-soaked address book was found in his pocket, his passport was not. Instead, his passport, which was also stained with his blood, was later handed to the police by Ortrum Cramer, one of LaRouche's followers....Cramer has never been asked how the passport came into her possession."

    Nov. 7: "Cult death student's family in court fight for new inquest," Daily Mail (London), Nov. 1. "New evidence gathered by three top forensic specialists shows the young student was savagely beaten to death with a blunt instrument. Their reports said that the damage sustained by his body could not have been caused by vehicles hitting him, and appeared to have been deliberately inflicted."

    Nov. 7: "Overseas fight for son's justice," Harrow Observer (London), Oct. 23. Report on Berlin conference quotes Hugo Duggan, Jeremiah's father: "Former members of [the LaRouche organization] gave powerful statements and damning accounts about the group. These people do not normally speak out...It was a very positive meeting with people coming together to make sure we are in the process of blowing this far-right organisation away and we will continue to campaign for justice."

    Hugo Duggan, father of Jeremiah.

    Nov. 6: "High court grants mother new inquest," Times-Series (London), Nov. 6. The wall of denial finally begins to crack! Erica Duggan's lawyers have successfully argued that the U.K. Attorney General's refusal to allow a second inquest into the death of Mrs. Duggan's son, Jeremiah, "should be amenable to review, allowing Mrs. Duggan to resubmit her case to the High Court." Mrs Duggan says: "This is the best outcome we could have wished for. The court said we had a lot of important evidence that the original post mortem missed. Hopefully the application for a new inquest will now just be a formality. We are not expecting anyone to oppose it." In other words, a new inquest will look at the forensic evidence that Jeremiah may have been beaten to death, including the fact that his passport, with his blood on it, was in the possession of the LaRouchians, not on his body, when the body was examined by the police at the putative "suicide" scene. This could finally lead to the British government putting heavy pressure on the German government to stop covering up for Lyn and Helga LaRouche and their far-right Jew-hating thugs in Wiesbaden.

    Nov. 6: "Inquest win for student's family," BBC News, Nov. 5. "The family of a student killed in a 'state of terror' after unwittingly attending a far-right event in Germany have come closer to a fresh inquest..."

    Nov. 4: A powerful analysis by "eaglebeak" of the Berlin anti-LaRouche conference. "When the LaRouche leadership seems to have something very intimate to do with the death of a loved one, and then denies it, covers it up, lies about it, and blames the dead person and the dead person's bereaved family for the death--it has the effect of creating an implacable demand for justice against LaRouche and all his epigonoi."

    Ex-members, parents, experts speak out.

    Nov. 3: Report on the Oct. 17, 2008 Berlin anti-LaRouche conference. Parents, experts, politicians, lawyers spoke out more strongly than ever about LaRouche's psychological terror tactics, intimidation of opponents, expoitation of young people, and coded anti-Semitism. And speaker after speaker urged the German government to finally launch a serious investigation of the case of Jeremiah Duggan, a Jewish university student from the U.K. who traveled to Germany for a LaRouche-sponsored event in March 2003--and ended up dead under mysterious circumstances.

    Oct. 31: "Rights leader sentenced to 15 years for incest" (Associated Press, Oct. 15, 2008). Former LaRouche Vice-Presidential running mate and civil rights activist James Bevel had raped his own underage daughter. "[The prosecution] revealed that at least four other daughters Bevel had with various women have made similar allegations against him." And: "The assault occurred in the early 1990s in Loudoun County, when Bevel was working closely with the Virginia-based organization led by...Lyndon LaRouche."

    DK: Lyndon sure knows how to pick 'em for his self-styled movement of neo-Platonic humanist golden souls. Remember how Rev. Bevel served as the public face for LaRouche's 1992 jailhouse race for the Presidency? Remember how Bevel described LaRouche as the successor to the mantle of Martin Luther King? And how Bevel served as a go-between for the alliance of LaRouche with NOI leader Louis Farrakhan? Now we see the true face of con man Bevel--a serial molester of his own daughters. (Ex-LaRouchians who were in Leesburg at the time recall that Bevel was a bizarre and dubious personality but say the cult's leadership looked the other way since Bevel was believed to be carrying out vital assignments for Lyn.)

    Rev. James Bevel.

    Oct. 31 (updated Nov. 5): Did the LaRouchians work to death a paraplegic in one of the cult's fundraising boiler rooms? Comments by ex-followers of LaRouche on the life and death of Andy Klein. "You cannot have a [person like Andy] in an immobile position for hours on end making phone calls and being yelled at as the potential for blood clots and bedsores begins to skyrocket."

    Oct. 31: Lyndon LaRouche and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad attacked George Soros as their Symbolic Evil Jew. Translation of Sept. 22, 1997 article from Corriere della Sera, Italy's most important daily newspaper, in which correspondent Stefano Cingolani writes: "Mahathir used in his argument the venom disseminated by a singular American hyperreactionary, Lyndon LaRouche, who never misses an opportunity to recycle his theory of the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy. This time he has accused Soros of having collaborated – although Jewish – with the Nazis who occupied Hungary, his native country. And the Malaysian press has embroidered on it."

    Earlier postings here.