For a moment I thought about changing that rather generic “Political Discourse” to “a gutter outlet under the supervision of Wall Street Fascist John Train”. But I thought better of it. What would my other subject matter, for this past week at least, Mitt Romney think about being left out of the picture? I’m only marginally part of the conspiracy, and I suspect only as an after-thought. Really, the conspiracy pretty much centers around Dennis King, he of… um… High Times magazine article fame.

Scary guy, that John Train.

There is more on the conspiracy over here, at the very happening Larouchepac, which together with EIR (but it’s undoubtedly from the same computer terminal) has been kicked into high gear and has been pumping out a whole mass of dreck for the past few days.
There is one quick item from the first paragraph worth considering.

Pro-fascist New York investment banker John Train’s long time hod-carrier, Dennis King, has launched a scurrilous slander campaign against Lyndon LaRouche. King has posted a series of smears on his website and other internet blogs concerning the recent death of long-time leading LaRouche collaborator Kenneth L. Kronberg. These slanders, along with King’s posting of stolen documents, are a distasteful exploitation of a personal tragedy in pursuit of Train’s political vendetta against LaRouche and a disrespectful disregard for the memory of Kronberg.

Now I turn your attention to the comment left by Dianne Bettag:

What does it make YOU if you publish stuff you have no personal knowledge of? How much research did you do before you published Nick Benton’s article and then responded to it as gospel…?

Bettag is referring to this article by Nick Benton, who I suppose is probably bought off by a “synarchist” of some sort with a Jewish name and a biography that takes him back to the Concentration Camps. (Bottom of two Larouche-related posts ago, concerning the charge leveled against Howard Dean, “synarchist” appearing in no fewer three titles in the deluge of Larouche articles being pumped out this week, and undoubtedly in many other articles.)

Which is based mostly on these and these and these and these internal documents from Larouche-land.

Which, according to that paragraph from Larouche-land are King’s posting of stolen documents.

Ergo, I don’t much care who Nick Benton is. A google search makes it appear that he writes editorials from a liberal opinion. I assumed at the time, and still do, that his source was Dennis King, he of High Times article fame, whose source I can only assume is some mole in the organization — actually, probably a baby-boomer. Unless I am to believe that King intercepts Larouche’s garbage at some junction, and can reassemble shredded documents. Or maybe he has hacking capabilities. Who knows? At any rate, our friends in Leesburg do not deny their authenticity, thus I am not terribly annoyed that I took Nick Benton’s article “as gospel”.
I left a message of some interest on the FACTNet board, which received this response:

I have read your blog and find it sharp and funny, and pretty insightful. But again, choosing LaRouche as your subject elevates him into an interesting & important subject, like a rare lilly species being examined by a confab of horticulturists. Isn’t the attention LHL receives out of proportion to his significance? The emergence of Dennis King in the role of coordinator of LHL activities and intelligence might not have the effect of saving young people or freeing people still with LHL, either. Because it could prove to members that one of their old enemies is back and is proof of the vast conspiracy out to destroy them.

I suppose it is a rare poisonous lilly species I am examining. He’s a little dis-ingenous with what makes the ex-Larouchites of the board think he is a plant, they should quit obsessing on the man. Apparently he cares as much as the next guy there, otherwise he would not be reading this blog or commenting on that board.
Yes. The attention I am giving LHL is out of proportion to his significance. But when I finish with him, I will likely gravitate toward something else of relatively little importance. (M i k e G r a v e l?) Beyond which, although I have little interest in “building a blog community” per se, it does fit Tip #3. I stumbled into this topic, and have not yet extricated myself.
Dennis King is the person who most cares about this subject, thus he is the one who cares enough to organize. Anybody who would fill in for his stead would be similarly demonized by Larouche. A different poster at FACTnet brings us this comment:

By the way, could anyone imagine what the world would be like if Lyn actually did succeed)? It might make an interesting visionary play or book to picture a LaRouchian world in which only Beethoven and Bach are played, no popular music, no jazz, no rock or rap or folk. Where no modern art is created but we are stuck only rehashing the classics from the past without any hope of creating new forms of art, music, drama, etc. The personality cult for Lyn would probably dwarf that for Stalin or Mao!!!

He would. It would. Fascism is like that, I suppose.
Muse also, as I figure out a way of butting in to respond. Give it a shot, anyone!:

I’ve read all the posts thus far; I too spent a few years in the organization and have very mixed feelings about it. First, for anyone to say that Lyn is a non-entity or has negligible political/philosophical effect amounts to pure innocence of fact, or to plain denial. Ideas can resonate. The LYM have been briefing and prodding Kucinich for years now. They obviously moved him to take action/bleat his rant. One might politely ask: how many world parliamentary bodies have YOU addressed; how many world figures have endorsed YOUR candidacies? Lyn’s effect is there, small perhaps but persistent. I got in after becoming inspired to assay a World Historical identity, yeah I know, but really, Lyn amd the org were cranking out a lot of intriguing theory in the 90’s especially, that’s what really brought me in: e.g. reviving Schiller’s Universal History angle and his “species consciousness;” Lyn’s insistence on physical economy/science-driver economy/infrastructure development; the push to comprehend a monster genius like Gauss, and how he determined asteroid orbits; man as capax dei and imago viva dei; the papers on God and metaphor, Substance of Morality, Jesus Christ and Civilization, America’s Manifest Destiny, and such. Sort of an ecumenical theism it seemed, at least on the surface, but with also a lot of depth. It looked like Lyn had modulated up from the early silly stuff, towards a JQ Adams type of American System theorist and figure. Anyway I found the theory intriguing in a provisional way at least and joined up, I had theoretic issues but I put them on hold—at least somebody was trying to do something to address the historical question generally.
I wised up to my future as a pack mule for the LYM, saw other unpleasant aspects, and phased out. But I’ve often thought that for all his faults Lyn is sort of a Least Imperfect Vehicle: clearly there are sillinesses and tawdrinesses, but at least he TRIED, to enunciate and work towards SOME sort of programmatic theory of a future directionality for the human race, with the New Bretton Woods initiative, which has some definite international resonance; his vision of 5,000 next-generation fission plants for the world, fusion-torch technology, &c. There does seem to be a growing discussion, even amongst some mainstream commentators, of a looming financial meltdown; and the US is in any case headed towards fiscal train wreck as the Boomers age, though Lyn doesn’t use this formulation to describe “the crisis”—which admittedly is perpetual in Lyn’s rhetoric, but then again, how ARE we going to move forward out of the mess the world is in? Where are we going; how are we to develop the sort of power needed to e.g, protect the planet from asteroids. The cynically disillusioned herein may say nay thanks, but are you offering up anything, at all, beyond tactical kindnesses? Maybe tactical kindnesses are the most we can do; maybe there is no solution; but people have a right to spend their life’s coin as they wish. History isn’t stagnant and I give Lyn the right to proffer up ideas and programs, and I give people the right to associate as they wish, to have a say and try to change history by action, even if I find silly or disagree vehemently with much of it. Indeed I find it troubling politically: the anti-Israel animus, on display of late especially in the venomous screeds of Dean Andromidas, and in the insinuations Lyn has publicized to the Muslim world that Israel was behind 9-11; the utter ignorance of the fact that the Koran itself is the source of much Islamic radicalism; the bizarre charge that Galileo and Newton were reactionary puppets of the Venetians; the fatuous Bush=Hitler/ “Chief Justice Roberts is a Nazi!” rants, &c.
I.e., Lyn is quite a mixed bag. It’s terribly sad what happened to Ken. Fidelio was a beautiful magazine in every sense; it seemed proof to me that there was something bigger going on with Lyn than mail fraud. Maybe if Lyn had been less of an egomaniac; maybe had the NC’s flown coach instead of first-class; maybe had Lyn and Helga lived more frugally; maybe then the members, and the German leadership, could have had some more comforts and securities; but if you choose to orbit a sun, you may get burned. I couldn’t take the heat, but those who have given their lives for the glorious cause of a New Renaissance, for a new monetary system, for a vision of a future—and for its enunciator—well, they have given their lives for it… And I will say this also: ‘though I certainly didn’t initiate it I helped to get the LYM thing started. Before I got out I was personally involved in organizing some of the cadre schools. The idea that LaRouche’s people beat poor Jeremiah to death appears to me so utterly ludicrous as to lend credence to a “Get LaRouche” hypothesis. The cadre schools focus on Lyn’s obscure musical aesthetics, on analyzing the catenary curve and various arithmetic/geometric means, and on “becoming world historical.” A blame-Israel-first component seems fundamental to Lyn’s system, but the idea of beating up potential recruits, would be a laughable allegation if it weren’t so weighty in implication. Unless there are/were some really, really bad goons on the Euro staff, which would be a huge surprise to me, I say the explanation lies elsewhere. Why does Dennis King call Helga Lyn’s “dog-wife”? Anyone can say Lyn is the merest shyster, charlatan, and con-artist, but isn’t the reality more complex? He may indeed be or have been a con artist, but I think he’s also on to some important dimensions of history in some provisional, adumbrative way. Thus my ambivalence.
Ugh.

I heard a quote from Mitt Romney today, apparently from an interview that is going to be aired on 60 Minutes this weekend (or some weekend, at least), which is sort of a defensive posturing against the more irksome aspects of Mormonism to the effect of:

“I can think of nothing worse than polygamy.”

It is a strange arena that no other candidate will feel the need to wander into, and for all the racial politics surrounding Barack Obama and the gender politics surrounding Hillary Clinton, I cannot possibly figure out what the equivalent would be — at least in terms of bluntness.  Naturally the host of the radio show I heard the quote on, Rick Emerson 11 to 3 970 AM, plowed through “Um.  The Holocaust?  A giant meteor striking the Earth and destroying all life on Earth?”  (Polygamy, as anyone who ventures through Utah or rural areas of adjoining states, is not completely dead — offically stricken from the Church of Latter Day Saints, the offshoots of the religion striving toward the pure meanderings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young against the accomodating mainline church carry on… awkwardly.)
Coming shortly to a move theater in Portland is the well-reveived at … it wasn’t Sundance?… movie on about the most viewed news article on the Seattle Times’ website.  That would be the incident in Enumclaw… Zoo.  I think I’ll pass, knowing that the mild curiosity I find with the subject is not going to be well displayed with any narrative.  They’re showing the Buffy the Vampire musical episode on the screen next week or soon thereafter.  I’ll wait for that one.
Meanwhile, as a follow up question, I would ask Mitt Romney “Which is worse…?”  Feel free to answer that question!

I was planning on panning Al Sharpton’s slam on Mitt Romney (Mormon)– which he assured everyone that he will be beaten by someone who believes in God.

Mitt Romney is many things, but an atheist he is not. Congressman Pete Stark is the only open “non-theist” elected to federal government. I want to elect an atheist to the presidency, but I recognize that is not happening. I doubt very much we’ll be electing a Mormon to the White House any time soon, which is to say that we’re probably not electing the Mormon that is being offered to us for the presidency right now.
But it would seem to put me in the company of the two commenters to the thread entitled something to the effect of “Barack Obama: Now Officially Killable” — which dovetailed to the Rush Limbaugh smirky adaption for “Barack — the Magic Negro”. (My only real point for Rush is that he is going to mine the psycho-racial-politics to pick up and flog anything like that LA Times article for those phrases.) Which is the specter of people foaming at the mouth wanting and demanding to say “negro” like the good old days.

Al Sharpton not mentioned in that blog post, and yet… the commenter brings him up. Why? I suppose there’s a tangeantal quality that rounds him into anything about political incorrectness. I am surprised neither anonymous commenters hit at the anachronism found in the name “NAACP”. (As an aside, I once sat while a barber was clipping my hair, the tv flashing some item concerning the NAACP. The barber actually asked the question “Why isn’t there a National Association for the Advancement of White People?” Awkward silence from me for the rest of the clipping. Actually there is a NAAWP — founded by David Duke. Maybe the barber can create the National Association for the Advancement of Non-Colored People?)

Al Sharpton? Huh? In one way the comment about him comes from nowhere, in another way it comes from a generic bullet point list.

…………………

Small update: actually I probably should dredge up the transcript to find out Al Sharpton’s context in what was a debate with the now “crusading” Atheist Christopher Hitchens.  Which is to find the answer to the question Why Romney and not, say, more aligned with the Christian Right (I would be assuming in terms of Sharpton’s defense that he’s claiming it’s a “It’s time for the Christian Right to meet the right Christian” statement Brownback???

Okay.  I am breaking what was supposed to be a week-long moratorium, and I get the feeling I am in too deep to leave those things aside.  Not to put too fine a point on this  — I think published in a Larouchite pamphlet of some sort, — but I need to point something out

Lyndon LaRouche has repeatedly noted that he’s never had a single political enemy who has tried to destroy him, who wasn’t thoroughly evil.

The latest round of slanders against LaRouche, launched by fascist Wall Street banker John Train, through gutter outlets such as Dennis King’s website and other internet blogs, serves to underscore that very point. The memo published in yesterday’s briefing, “Lynne Cheney, John Train and Dennis King: Obsession with LaRouche Reaches New Low”-which is now posted prominently on the LPAC website–explains that the current slander wave “mimics the campaign run by King [on Jeremiah Duggan and blah blah blah.]

I want you to pause on “and other internet blogs”.

In terms of blogs, and he specifically said ‘blogs’ — that would be … um… so far as I can tell — and I am sure if there were others it would appear on this Kenneth Kronberg memorial page, this blog and … the one you are staring at right now.
The secret is out.  This blog is a gutter outlet under the supervision of fascist Wall Street banker John Train.

Uh huh.

How do I put this?  Let’s go ahead and bring Adolf Hitler into the picture.  Let’s pretend that he said something like, I don’t know, “In order to get a horse you are riding on moving, you need to yell ‘Giddy-up!'”

Now, pretend that I am giving a lesson on riding horses.  So I say to my horse riding class, “Adolf Hitler had good advice on how to ride a horse.  He said, ‘In order to get a horse you are riding on moving, you need to yell ‘Giddy-up!'”

So it goes and rages on of the meaning of various figures in history.  The battle lines are drawn back to the Confederate Lines.

Controversy was sparked last fall when MTSU senior Amber Perkins circulated a petition requesting the name of Forrest Hall be changed. She initially won the endorsement of the university’s Student Government Association Senate.

One could probably look up a long period of time when Nathan Bedford Forrest was referenced often and positively into the Congressional Record.  By the old defenders of White Supremacy.  Lauding his work in defeating the Northern Aggression and the carpetbaggers and their negro henchmen of Reconstruction.  I wonder when the last time Nathan Bedford Forrest was referenced in the Congressional Records.
You know, considering that the South lost the Civil War, but defeated the Reconstruction — the second part of his career — establishing the KKK — sticks out a little more strongly than the military genius that Ted Poe wants us to reference — meaning… you have to understand, when I hear the name Nathan Bedford Forrest, I think founder of a terrorist organization.  (Actually, before today, I have to pause for a second and ask weakly — “Name is familiar.  KKK, I think?”

When all is said and done, his military strategies were at the conclusion more successful the second time around than the first.  (If you want to say he was an insurgent fighting an occupation, feel free to.)
Okay.  My fellow moon-bats, for the purpose of this particular moment I’ll use that term… How about Comrade Howard Zinn on Columbus, and the zinger he throws at Samuel Eliot Morison:

Despite this scholarly language—“contradictory conclusions…academic disputed…insoluble question”—there is no real dispute about the facts of enslavement, forced labor, rape, murder, the taking of hostages, the ravages of disease carried from Europe, and the wiping out of huge numbers of native people. The only dispute is over how much emphasis is to be placed on these facts, and how they carry over into the issue of our time.

Let me make myself clear. I am not interested in either denouncing or exalting Columbus. It is too late for that. We are not writing a letter of recommendation for him to decide his qualification for undertaking another voyage to another part of the universe. To me, the Columbus story is important for what it tells us about ourselves, about our time, about the decisions we make for our country, for the next century.

Never mind.  You can maintain an opinion of Columbus completely different from Zinn’s (to denigrate or minimize Columbus Day is to an affront toward Italian Americans, Pat Buchanan says every year) and still see what his point is, and what my point is with regard to a defense of Ted Poe’s use of Nathan Bedford Forrest to prove any point whatsoever.

I think I am exhausting anything I have to say about this topic for the moment. So, I will safely move on to other topics and less estoeric concerns and leave this aside, barring any major development, for at least a week.

Thus, we have experienced the “white collar” social castes which, by and large, distinguish that Baby-Boomer generation from its “blue collar” contemporaries, a caste whose influence is reflected in the actual long-term effects of the influence of the “white-collar 68ers,” over the 1968-2007 interval. These effects have tended to prompt the culprits, the Baby Boomers themselves, to resort to sweeping and destructive, draconian measures of social control, such as today’s lunatic, so-called “environmentalist” measures of globalization, and, thus, into methods of political tyranny employed, ironically, tragically, as “corrective” measures of control of individual behavior, as by “environmentalist” measures which generate long-ranging ruinous effects as bad in their own way, as those of the pro-eugenics Hitler regime earlier. Often, even usually, this draconian reaction to long-term consequences of patterns in cumulative local, short-term behavior, is a reaction of a type which has little or nothing to do with the causes of the problem, but is simply the tyrannical enforcement of some antic delusion, as, presently, by many among our Baby-Boomer stratum itself.Jesus Christ on a freaking pogo stick! The “Larouche” search on my bloglines is pumping through quite a few items, which means the monkey-job in charge of posting these things up — presumably in Leesburg, Virginia — is working right now. For the sake of bemusement, I click in and see blathering about Baby-boomers!

To sum up the situation, guaging the general gist of the material and headlines from the latest edition of EIR (once upon a time a $300 publication — supposedly — now just a mouseclick away): We are on the verge of economic collapse. It’s the baby-boomers’ fault. And Al Gore’s. Not mutually exclusive, since Al Gore is a baby-boomer.

The post-war “Baby Boomer” syndrome passed through two distinct initial phases. The first phase, 1945-1956, is best described as “the triumphalist phase,” the phase of the euphoric delusion that “our type is on the road to endless triumphs” over other “classes” in our own nation, and over the world at large. This phase, of the “Organization Man,” coincides with the emergence of what President Eisenhower was to describe, at the close of his second term, as the initial phase of the “military-industrial complex.” In the meantime, over the 1957-1961 interval, a deep recession had demoralized the typical parental households of the “Baby Boomers.” There was a recurrence of that cyclical-like, manic-depressive cultural pattern during the span of the Clinton Administration, when Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s wildly lunatic financing of the combined housing and Y2K “bubbles,” prompted a wild-eyed, “we are wonderful” euphoria among the Baby Boomers, who had now taken over power in government from the hands of their parents’ generation. This was followed by the wave of cultural pessimism, echoing somewhat the 1957-1961 interval of pessimism among the generation of the typical parents of the Baby Boomers themselves. It was the politics of the disastrous 2004 Gore-Lieberman election-campaign, not the mystical power of the menopause, which prompted, and thus made possible the 2000-2007 pattern to date. For me, working in circumstances and professional functions which afforded me special advantages at that time, I can attest that the reactions to the delusions of 1993-1999, and the shift from 2000 on, parallel almost exactly that of the parents of the Baby Boomers with similar experience during and following the 1957-1961 interval. One wonders: it possible for Baby Boomers to actually think for themselves? Is it possible for Baby Boomers to actually think for themselves? I don’t know. Maybe he can issue that challenge for the baby-boomers under his control. Can the younger-than-baby boomer set — the Larouche Youth Movementers — think for themselves? For example: how is it a stunning EPIC crisis du jour that demands their guru be put in charge to create a new “economic architecture” when he has described a pattern of boom and bust — pass through tough times and come back to better times, as he said?

I notice a number of mistakes in this stupdifying article, of which I posted a paragraph and a footnote. What is the Gore/Lieberman 2004 campaign? And can we start getting the Larouchites to ape the phrase “mystical menopause”?

So, are you going to attend this? If no, why not? It’s as though he grabbed the propaganda from the corporate-funded think tanks (and there is money to be made by doing so) and catupulted right past it, just to make sure!

…………………..

Some time ago, the card-tablers came and tossed their usual pamphlets around. And thus we have the guidance for “Organizing the Recovery for the Great Crash of 2007”.

I think the most expedient way of disposing of this is to simply guide through the photographs — stock footage it all. So we have George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler. And we have What do these four have in common? They are all agents of the Anglo-Dutch forces who have been committed to destroy the US Republic since its inception. I think is background noise. It is filler. Don’t pay any attention to it. He just grabbed something out of his pamphlets from the 1980s to fill space. More pertinent to Larouche’s mind-set of the moment is the dichotemy between the following two items:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean turned to the upper 3 percent of family income brackets for financial support and notably the cronies of bankers and synarchist Felix Rohatyn(**). The lower 80 percent are basically ignored.

Former secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin, an intelligent and couregous man, but he’s not offering solutions to the economic crisis in which he sees dearly.

In a weird way, Howard Dean, because he garnered grass-roots support and is a hero to the Democratic base, is an enemy for Larouche to play off of. It is to pretend that he is the real grass-roots Democrat, and Dean is a pretender, a stooge to the upper 3 percent and … um… synarchists. (A term nobody but Larouche and his minions use.) I first noticed this when Larouche claimed a special election victory — an upset for the Democrats– last December, a defeat for Howard Dean’s “50 State Strategy”. How is that? I couldn’t make heads or tails of the thing, for our little cult leader was basically just bluffing.

On the other hand, Clinton and the Clintonites are a-okay! The photograph for Bill Clinton in this pamphlet has it that he was “going to enact economic policies toward Russia similar to those proposed by Larouche” but that the Impeachment stalled this, and thus came the Economic collapse Russia suffered in 1998. Hence, in a different pamphlet (I was hoping it would be this one, but apparently I was wrong — it’s one I mused through and threw away a long time ago), a pravda-like moment that I believe is emblematic of a number of things…

So, I guess it’s one of those “historic web-casts”. A 20-something year old “leader” of the “Larouche Youth Movement” asks, to paraphrase “What are your thoughts on Bill Clinton? Even though he’s a baby-boomer, he seemed to be good.” Larouche answered, as capsuled in the photograph caption “Bill Clinton, flawed baby-boomer, showed tremendous growth through his presidency.”

Further down we have a photograph of… the 20-something year old “leader” of the “Larouche Youth Movement”, and the caption, along the lines of “Outstanding leader of the Larouche Youth Movement: her leadership and poise show she’s going places and will guide the next generation out of the debris left by the Baby-boomers.” Or… something to that effect.

She… didn’t really ask anything… or show any leadership here. It is followership she showed in asking the question the Cult Leader wanted to be asked. Grooming for a place in middle-management of Larouche Inc, I suppose.

I suppose she might have known exactly what to ask from Larouche radio, as described here:

the place is kinda empty, a bunch of chairs, white board, laptop/speakers, coat rack. and a dinner for everyone. some ppl make weird remarks when i decide not to eat due to the use of chicken in every dish conflicting with my vegetarian status. they are all listening to a live broadcast (some kind of radio, maybe CB, but defiinitly not AM/FM) of a LaRouche reporter. mentions some current events specific bills in the senate/house, growing anti al gore polls.

… maybe one of those “stations betwen stations” that the Digital High Fi Radio ads are always going on about?

My mind reeled at that display, and it definitely was communicating something. Dennis King, who I must point out once wrote an article that was published in High Times magazine, and by a title and with a focal point completely different from what Larouche has told his minions — may well explain that unsettling display within this call to action. (Actually, Dennis King confuses me a bit. He is Ahab to Larouche as Moby Dick. Which, I guess, is fine — if King didn’t exist, somebody would have to fill that void.):

To help people who will be leaving the cult after decades of dependency and isolation from the real world, there needs to be a hotline and a support organization. This is a priority because the 84-year-old LaRouche apparently has decided to demote or expel scores of his burned-out old timers (those whom he calls the “boomers”) so he can establish fresh and energetic LaRouche Youth Movement (LYM) cadre in positions of authority. He seems to believe that the LYM’ers recruited in recent years, and ranging in age from their late teens to their mid-thirties, will carry on his legacy in an aggressive manner after he dies. He shrewdly (if nastily) recognizes that many of the boomers are tired of being 24-hours-a-day activists and are just going through the motions while longing for more personal space in their lives—and that once he’s gone they will either wander off or strive to turn the organization in a less fanatical (i.e., less “LaRouchian”) direction.The purge is well under way in Europe, where dozens of boomers have already been forced out. In the United States, Ken Kronberg was one of the first, but there will be more middle-aged LaRouche followers ruthlessly rejected after decades of slavish loyalty. Even if most of these people do not seriously contemplate suicide, they will be disoriented and in desperate straights. They will need professional counseling, they will need the support of former members who understand their experiences and have the compassion to talk them through the crisis via late night phone conversations, they will need assistance in surviving economically and finding jobs (or training for jobs) in the real world.

The uproar over Kronberg’s death may cause LaRouche to slow down his purge of the U.S. organization, at least for a few months, but a hotline is also urgently needed to help newly recruited young people, many of whom are not yet fully indoctrinated and might get up the nerve to escape if they were to receive a little encouragement as well as transportation and an escort back to their parents’ home.

It’s as good an explanation of “WTF” as anything. But in terms of post-Larouche Larouchism, I am having a difficult time imagining anything working. I suppose he can grant the powers of observation to somebody. North Korea went from Kim Il Sung to Kim Jong Il, and the cult of personality there continued. We don’t have a similar dynamic at work here, and if you strip it all down it is more personaity based a cult than any ideology, so… to what personality do you run it on to? Still, if I were in Larouche’s shoes, that’s the only possible way forward.

———————

Additional.  I am kind of embarrassed that I didn’t post this when I posted this late last night, but the wee hours of the morning were getting to me.  I would be remiss if I don’t cover this from the all pervasive angle, as opposed to the transitory issues of personality politics I dealt with of manipulating the supposed Clinton versus Dean controversy.  Synarchist is a synonym for international cabalist.  Felix Rohatyn is… well… a prominent Jewish banker (and Holocaust survivor).  So what Larouche is referring to is the International Jewish Banker’s Conspiracy.