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.
In her amended complaint filed in federal court in Alexandria, VA on Sept. 2 (go to http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/kronberg-complaint2.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, in spite of its attractive appearance, 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 (article at http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3492361 ). 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.