Who is Lyndon Larouche?

by cynicus 38 Replies latest jw friends

  • cynicus
    cynicus
    Besides, they give media time to all sorts of goofballs and degenerates. Look at the Govenor of Minnesota, Ventura. He was a smack down wrestler for crying out loud. Yet they had no problem sticking a microphone in front of him. LOL In fact the more degenerate someone is the more the media makes him a celebrity.

    Sigh... now what does the above statement tell us about YK? It proves that he is indeed intellectually shitlazy.

    Had he used a simple searchengine query he would have found out that Jesse Ventura's (actually James Janos) career not only consisted of 'smack down' wrestling. In fact he would have found out that the man was a Navy SEAL for six years, a Vietnam veteran, that he attended college, and that he was mayor of the 6th city in Minnesota for several years before becoming governor. Compare that with YK's selfprojection about Jesse Ventura --- a 'degenerated' wrestler --- used as a sneering defense for a nutters' lack of media attention.

    . http://www.mainserver.state.mn.us/governor/bio___media_kit.html

    Do I pretend that mr. Ventura is an intellectual genius? No. But him being totally discredited by YKs sewer tactics is too much. Besides I loved to see 'the Body' slam down Hulk Hogan...

  • You Know
    You Know
    Don't even try to use that brain of yours.

    On the contrary. I encourage people to think and entertain new ideas. That's why I brought up LaRouche in the first place. It seems that you, though, would rather just pretend to be a thinker, but instead seem only interested in poisioning others minds to new ideas rather than actually honestly consider what LaRouche puts forth about the system being on the verge of collapse. That's not using your brain. That's just stupidity. / You Know

  • You Know
    You Know

    As far as Ventura: You got me on that one. I didn't know that about him. I guess the media put one over on me there, same as they did you on LaRouche. / You Know

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    YK,

    Thank you for your answer to my post.

    The fact that you acknowledge that LaRouche has a brilliant mind while others dismiss him as an idiotic or crazy man shows there is a disconnect somewhere.
    I actually see no disconnect here, as surely some of the most brilliant thinkers throughout mans history also have their fatal flaws. I think it is possible to have the 'crazy' and 'brilliant' connected in one man and often at one moment. Do you not agree?

    For you info: The fundamental view of oligarchism is that man is a mere beast and a servant to the oligarch. The opposed view is that man is made in the image of God. Nearly all social and political struggles in the last 500 year period can best be explained by this phenomenon of antagonism. So, as a classical humanist, LaRouche feels that classical music is one of the highest forms of art which uplifts the human mind in ways that I certainly can't explain, but not suprisingly he does. He recognizes that rock and roll music is debasing, which of course, we have all heard before elsewhere. But, he also explains how the Tavistock institute has been involved over the last 60 years in a massive brainwashing operation by training their operatives in a certain mindset, and then gradually, over decades, using those agents to infiltrate the media and subvert it with bestial forms of entertainment for the purpose of demoralizing the population, similar to the dehumanizing Roman policy of "bread and circus." The fact that such a condition prevails leads me to think that it's true. Basically, as far as I'm concerned, LaRouche explains how the Devil does his work through various human agencies.
    He is of course not the first commentator of modern times to begin to draw similar conclusions. Mircea Eliade begins to explore similar motifs in his book 'The Two And The One', and another book that I found very useful is Roger Hazelton’s book ‘A Theological Approach To Art’. I have even read argued that post-mediaeval classical music was the beginning of the end of mankind. I would agree that music is the most powerful of the artistic disciplines as it is a universal and emotional language and can lift the heart into heaven or fill a heart with ‘bestiality’ dependent on its motives. The Devil’s involvement is subjective, as when I first came along to the WTS in the early 70’s, I was heavily counseled for listening to Jazz music by the Cong. Servant! It was described as ‘worldly’ and ‘demonic’, because they perceived it as having no structured form and was thus open to the influence of Demons. I suspect few would try to defend this position today.

    I have such heavily opinionated views on music that I seldom share them publicly lest they lead to my early death. What I will say is that in my opinion at the bottom level of the current musical food chain is ‘rap’ music and at the top end is British Jazz, possibly the most underestimated art form the past hundred years.

    Anyway, YK thank you for an interesting thread. Just to let you know that I respect your intelligence, and defend your right to reach any intellectual conclusions that you see fit too, but am not terribly impressed with the way that you change a persons ‘handle’, such as ‘Sneaker’, ‘Fraudbacker’, ‘Hilarys Mis-Step’. etc., not so funny; above all crass, and sarcasm that is certainly wasted on me.

    Best regards -- HS

  • larc
    larc

    You Know,

    Like Cynicus, I have read LaRouch's original writings and find them to be squirely. You say that comments are being taken out context. Whole paragraphs were presented, not mere snippets. I can assure you that these quotes represent LaRouch's views as represented by his entire essays on a subject. You know that as well as we do. LaRouch also believes that the British royalty are the central control of the drug trade. You also know that, now don't you.

    Both in polical and economic analysis, LaRouch is long on assertion, inuendo, half truths, with a little bit of fact thrown in for good measure and short on substantiated facts. In our discussion of productivity, you have yet to reference a technical paper where LaRouch: 1. provides and operational definition of the seven factors he discusses, 2. lists the references for data, 3. describes how the quantitative is combined or weighted within each factor, 4. describes how the seven factors are weighted to come up with an overall productivity measure. 5. Show through mutliple regression or lead-lag analysis how these variables actually predicted future economic conditions. In short, he has done nothing that you can demonstrate that shows a scholarly treatise in economics. His language is the language of a demogue, not an econometrician, which he claims to be. I can't see anything that supports his claim.

  • You Know
    You Know

    I have been reading LaRouche for 6 or 7 years and I still haven't read everything the EIR has put out. You read a couple of articles and now imagine that you know all about it. You also claim that you debunked him. That's pretty ridiculous. I think you might be suffering from some sort of delusions of granduer or something like that. / You Know

  • larc
    larc

    You Know,

    I have been reading scholarly works for 35 years. I have written over 25 research articles that are published in peer reviewed journals. I am now in the process of preparing two manuscripts for publication. One has to do with the correction for unreliability in human judgement using three different methods and the relationship between the three. The three methods are: the coefficient of stability, accuracy score measurement, and the standard correction for measurement error for pair wise comparisons. My data shows that these three measures produce nearly identical results. No one has shown this before, in the 120 year history of psychometrics, nor have they seen the relationship. Now, in doing research to determine what has been done, it is possible to trace recent research back through references provided by the researcher to the origins of the method in question. By contrast, LaRouch's work does not provide a chain of references back to original research, so I am not inclined to try to read hundreds of his articles, since a sample of 30 provides no leads. In the journals I am reading, all the articles provide the kind of research trail I am describing. If they didn't, their work would not get published. In short, I am used to a higher level of scholarship than you are able to provide to me.

    If you would like to read a sample of the kind of detailed analysis I am describing, you might look at three articles that appeared in Personnel Psychology about a year ago. In these articles, Kevin Murphy, the editor of the Journal of Applied Psychology, is promoting the use of Generalizability Theory, while Frank Schmidt, the originator of standard works on the use of meta analysis is defending the use of Classical Measurement Theory. I don't expect you to understand these articles or even have any interest in them. However, if you simply scanned these three articles, you would get an idea of the depth of detailed analysis involved in some issues. I am asking for something comparable from LaRouch. If his econometrics are over my head, I can contact the three economists who are friends of mine for comments. So far, I have not bothered them, since what I have read from LaRouch thus far is way below the point of needing any technical assistance. He is all reteric and no proof.

  • larc
    larc

    You Know,

    One other comment. You couldn't resist giving me a barb, rather than sticking with facts. No, I do not have delussions of granduer. I have a very accurate self assessment, especially when it comes to research methodology and applied statistics (I used to teach it at the college level). Presently, I am engaged in communication with Kevin Murphy regarding my research. Believe me, his level of critque is orders of magnitude more complex and thought provoking than anything you have written to me.

  • You Know
    You Know
    One has to do with the correction for unreliability in human judgement using three different methods and the relationship between the three.


    You've got to be kidding me? That's the funniest thing I think I have ever read on this board. / You Know

  • larc
    larc

    You Know,

    Just what about this strikes you as funny? For psyhcometricians, this represents a fundamental issue. I can elaborate, but I would rather see if you can offer something of substance, rather than ridicule.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit