Rock and Roll Part 2

“Hey! Come here a minute! We need to straighten out this guy’s mind.”

“Yes… I understand the sentiment of Kerry and Bush being this good cop / bad cop routine, but that doesn’t mean that…”

“See, you get it. At least, part of it.”

“LaRouche’s not a out of wack. Go back to the title ‘Children of Satan’. It’s an old anti-semitic slur.”

“Oh. I get it now. Wall Street Journal editorialist (name didn’t register).”

“…so why name your pamphlet that?”

“But none of these guys are Jewish… Cheney, Rumsfeld… well, Perle and Wolfowitz are, but…”

“It came out March of last year. Everyone was confused at the start of the war, and we needed to … loosen things up a bit.”

“Reaction is (face aglow with mock-shock) ‘Children of Satan’… Really?

“But… ‘Children of Satan’… you know it’s an old anti-semitic slur.”

“When? Look… it doesn’t matter, because… it’s not what we’re talking about… these guys here… They are the Children of Satan.”

“Do you know the difference between Man and Animal?”

I was vaguely aware of where this was going… I’ve heard Clyde Lewis interview some LaRouche organizar named Ron Wolfe… the effect in hearing those interviews is… dinsultorary (coin a new term.) We move toward a half-baked, half parasitically land-grabbed excuse to use the term “Beast-Man”.

I wasn’t terribly interested and I needed to leave shortly anyway, so I answered every “probing” question with “I give up. You tell me,” until a long-haired bearded, mildly stoned by disposition guy I used to know slightly better than I do now came up and said “Hey! Have any new conspiracies for me?”… and initiated a somewhat more interesting conversation — the LaRouchites arguing that the “Children of Satan” are inherently evil (remember: they are Beast-Men), and him arguing that they’re misguided, but not evil.

They still don’t seem to understand the connotative nature of the terms “Children of Satan”, or for that matter “Beast-Man”.

But I promise: I’m done with them…

Leave a Reply