Thursday, April 9, 2009

Three posts from Factnet: On LC tactics and why one LYM-member left the LYM and the LC!

Anonymous (
Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 9:40 am:        
Perhaps it might be helpful to someone to record how I came to leave the NCLC: 

When I left, I thought LaRouche & Cie were 100% right about everything, and that it was I that was the problem 100%. However, I simply could not bear the lying, the shabbiness of human relations, the continual abuse from people who were clearly lacking in conscience, the shame of standing out in public twelve hours per day like the town loon pushing crazy claims I suspected to be false, and so on, that led me to just leave, heavy hearted: I wanted to fight for humanity, but my organism simply came to resist the environment which seemed necessary to do so. There was simply no rhyme or reason to any of it. But I used to blame this on this or that NEC or NC member for this or that abuse; I used to think, "if only Lyn knew what was going on!" It took years before the light came on that he was the source of all this misery. It took years, because I had such sure faith in his godlike powers of creative mentation, that it took further experience of human beings generally, especially of human beings in power, that I was enabled to understand my LC experience in its proper context, i.e. a cult of personality. The day of liberation came some four years later when I joyfully loaded three large, black plastic garbage bags full of "literature" and hauled them out to the street. I only wish I had saved the internal memos for publication at this time, because then the newcomer to the LC could get an accurate picture of how s/he is viewed by "management." 

If one is a current member, ask yourself: 

(1) How does the bad treatment meted out to me daily comport with a "humanist" outlook? Am I not a human being? Even if the deployment/contact meeting went poorly? Or is my humanity contingent upon outcomes, which contradicts the notion of the intrinsic worth of people, the official line of the organization? 

(2) Is it possible at all that one human being should be right about everything all the time? When has Lyn EVER admitted being wrong? Does that sound normal? Therefore, is this someone I should be following, someone who implicitly claims to be infallible about everything? 

(3) Let me look at my activity: sales. How are sales helping to build a better world? Really. 

I hope this helps someone.


Anonymous (
Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 9:37 am:        
LaRouche's tactics are summarized below... 

(excerpted from Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, pp. 126-140;) 


Tactics mean doing what you can with what you have. Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. In the world of give and take, tactics is the art of how to take and how to give. Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves. 

For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people's organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then...conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place. 

Always remember the first rule of power tactics: 

Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. 

The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat. 

The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat. 

The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity. 

The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage. 

The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic. 

The seventh rule is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment... 

The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose. 

The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. 

The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. 

The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative... 

The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. you cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right--we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us." 

The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. 

In conflict tactics there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and "frozen." By this I mean that in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant, and somewhat legitimate, passing of the buck.... 

It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target.... 

One of the criteria in picking your target is the target's vulnerability--where do you have the power to start? Furthermore, the target can always say, "Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?" When you "freeze the target," you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all others to blame. 

Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the "others" come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target. 

The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract such as a community's segregated practices or a major corporation or City Hall. It is not possible to develop the necessary hostility against, say, City Hall, which after all is a concrete, physical, inanimate structure, or against a corporation, which has no soul or identity, or a public school administration, which again is an inanimate system. 

[He says your target should be a person in the organization you are opposing; a face within the opposition for you to focus on; it must be someone with power within the organization, like the CEO, school superintendent, governor, or something like that.]


Hemlock (

Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 2:31 pm: 
That's not really a very good description, however I will relate a classic tale that describes it much better: 

In the time of Plato there were others who attempted to be of his ilk, but their greed and hnger for power led them to be much lesser men. One of these was Fulloshitteus Laroachicus, here is a dialogue copied down by a student, Brainwashtius Tomicus: 

"I am Fulloshitteus Laroachicus, and I am here to tell you that should you not sacrifice your cow to the gods next week the Universe will come crashing down on your head! Sacrifice that cow and leave it at my front gate, where my servants shall roast it (as according to the gods), and I and my family shall feast upon it to cleanse this village of its sin, and please the gods, Economicus Collapicus, and Universus Physicallus Principallus--these gods you do not understand, but luckily I, Fulloshitteus can explain these things to you in ways that will make you feed me as all village folk should. By the way, do you have any wine to sacrifice????

No comments:

Post a Comment