Waiting in line at a Fred Meyers behind a lady prone to say “oh dear”.  She is having trouble figuring out how the bill is so high, saying “Oh dear.  I wasn’t prepared to pay that much.”  The cashier is gracious enough in this situation, throwing darts as to what might have tipped the price a bit more steeply than she was expecting.

The “oh dear” lady gives the last ditch effort to garner some semblence of control over her uncontrollable situation.  “Why, I think I will do all my shopping at Safeway from now on.”  The cashier looks on, blankly.

My experience tells me that Safeway is ever-so-slightly more expensive than Fred Meyers, and has a more obnoxious card system, more obnoxious to people like me who’d prefer the corporation not have my shopping information on hand.  Regretably Fred Meyers has a card of sorts, which doesn’t give you a phony discount (phony in the sense that I’m prone to buy whatever brand is on sale, so I’m not really “saving” the amount the receipt claims I am), but does eat into the promotional budget such that I can draw a line from its existence to fewer coupons and cents off.  I once had a Fred Meyers cashier ask the customary “Have a card?”, and after I said “no”, say “Good idea.  Best to keep out of the database.”  I swear I wanted to tip that guy right then and there.  At any rate, the “oh dear” lady is not keeping up with inflation, and this is a case of the sticker shock that meets us all when we stare at something and ask “How can that puny thing possibly cost so much?”
Waiting for the denoument of the proper item being either taken out of the shopping melee, or for her to gulp it down and pay for everything — overpriced though it may be, I glance over at the periodicals.  I see the headline, on a sidebar of what I don’t think is People but is something like People II, “Swimsuits for every Body Type”.  The picture it shows underneath these words is of Kate Hudson in a small bikini.  Which, I suppose, is a swimsuit for a particular body type… the body type that you see appearing on most magazines that have the impetus to show a picture of a woman in a bikini.
Whatever sells magazines.

I may as well post an email or two from out of my bloggings to this category.  This came to me in January of 2005, sometime before I became apt to jib and jab through 40 years of Larouche’s stupid career… and before media outlets started feeling me out for help on this topic.  (And by media outlets I mean two of them.)
I just found your blog via justiceforjeremiah and was reading Scott's statement about LaRouche.

Any tips?

I honestly didn’t know how to move through this, and as I pointed out my blog actually covered about 80 percent of all my experiences with Larouchites — which amounted to, in real world excursions, very little.  I know more than I did then and it occupies a greater part of my conciousness than it did then– I actually, for the first time ever, had a dream that involved Larouche the other night — it was the type of dream that I occasionally have which I wonder if others have so complete and fluid in its narrative structure that I wish there was a device that I could just download it onto the written page and ship it off to a publisher– which is a signal that I am no longer as completely ajar from this topic as I once was.  I now have a better background of references to historical precedents of just what it means for a Larouchite to be seeking out martial arts training because of irreconciable political differences with those he meets.  At the time it seemed in keeping with a strident brainwashed militancy.  Today, I can reference training in Leesburg or early NCLC and bloodies knuckles and machettes at Communist meetings, in prepation for Epic Street Battles.

Oh jeezuz.  I should prepare something like “Part 2” for “How to dissolve a Cult.”

The book Dialectical Economics by esteemed Marxist econo-myte Lyn Marcus, published in 1975 by some imprint of the Lyn Marcus Capitalist Concern Inc., opens with the following dedication note:

“To my enemies, who made this book necessary.”

Not an entirely cheerful dedication, but I suppose it befits a dense polemical journey into a realm of fantasy. So, putting myself in the midst of Lyn Marcus’s whereabouts, circa 1975, I have to wonder…

Who are his enemies at that point in time?

Um… At this point in time he was making overtures to the far-right and anti-semitic “Liberty League”, who’s publication would include an advertisement for Larouche material saying he was the only respectable Marxist. We are a couple years past “Operation Mop Up”, an string of events that I cannot overstate in significance to those concerned. But, on the other hand, this book appears to be a collegation of his teachings from the late 1960s to …. circa 1975.

Having recently read The Prophet’s Children, and posted the chapter on Landon Laroach, I wonder. Do angry residuals from his battle to gain control of SDS (at Columbia at least) make any appearance? I can look to the index for “Action Faction” and “Praxis Axis” and find, amid the unreadable gunk… well…

Praxis signifies nothing less than an entirety (universality) of human practice. Kant properly insists that practical reason cannot be located in the notion of the pleasure or desire associated with the actualization of a particular object or class of objects. He thus adduces that a priori content for practical reason as “pure practical reason,” since he locates substantiality in the “thing in itself” and the understanding. Where he dialectically demonstrates the existence of necessary principles governing particular objects he necessarily attributes to those principles the efficient nature of pure reason (Logos) in the same broad sense as does Hegel (ergo realism = idealism). The difference between Kant and Hegel on this point is that Hegel demands the immediate equivalence of the extended logo […]

Okay. I stop this paragraph, because I have a confession to make. I posted this for the sake of torturing you. Still, today’s membership of the Lyn Marcus Youth Movement can compare and contrast their current cadre school study guides with that of their fore-fathers — who, I will go ahead an term the Expendable Baby-boomers. The Expendable Baby-boomers can reminisce on … different times… when the Fifth International was in full steam and they were on the Vanguard of staving off financial crisis after financial crisis, right and left! Otherwise, I invite you to pretend you didn’t read that.

Kant articulates explicitly and repeatedly what amounts to the painstaking opposition of his notion of Praxis to the pragmatical empiricist sophistries of SIdney Hook’s bawdlerization of Korsch, or the even more trivialized dictionary nominalism of the “praxisite” or new working class cults of the late U.S. New Left. […] To use the term “praxis” as a fancy synonym for “practice” in the cracker barrel sense is an ignorant schoolboy’s prank.

And, indeed, the footnote points to further anger and derision at the faction of the SDS in which gained control, and Larouche was unable to pull into his realm of control. I suspect other “enemies” pop up in equally acidic manners in this unreadable book. Regrettably, there is no space for Nelson Rockefeller or Henry Kissinger.

Shouldn’t I be pondering David Broder’s studied Importance or something?

I watched a procession of protesters streaming across Pioneer Courthouse Square, chanting something like “Hemp NOW! NOW Hemp!”, and singing something like “We like hemp, yes we do.”

Standing at the corner, yelling into this mix, was a small group of Christian fundamentalists. I think they were yelling a chant akin to “You will burn in Hell! Jesus Saves! Ezekial 3:17!”

All of this was, perhaps, par for the course. I saw a sign that suggested it was part of the “Million Hemp March”, a joke if there ever was one considering the size of the crowd — large, I suppose, so far as these things go. But what I couldn’t figure out for the life of me…

At the end of the procession, there was what appeared to be a dragon. Why?

I think we should remind ourselves because I remember every day that on September 11, 2001, we thought we were going to be attacked many, many times between then and now.  We haven’t been. I believe we had a president who made the right decision at the right time on September 20, 2001, to put us on offense against terrorists, and I think we as Republicans should remind people of that.
No I didn’t.

…………………..

I really want to leave it at that, pithy and obnoxious.  And if you want to, I invite you to leave it at that and quit reading.  But it seems like political analysis and debate requires a bit more explication.  al Qaeda attacked the World Trace Center in 1993.  Then they attacked it again in 2001.  That’s an eight year lapse between successful attacks on American soil.  I expected when I got around to thinking about it for a moment on 9/11 a duration like that before they manage to do so again.  If things went right for the evil doers, perhaps a duration to the major foiled plots of New Years Eve 2000 would have served an equal diliniation of time.

Perhaps you were different.  Perhaps you were gripped by fear that on 9/11 that you thought we were in for a bombardment of terrorist strikes, some of them hitting you right in your background splitting that old oak tree you placed a bird feeder on in Greensville, Iowa.  But you can’t live with that irrational fear, it is — I suppose — a 9/11 mindset, and we need to adopt a post-9/11 mindset.  So destructive is a 9/11 mindset that the much maligned pre-9/11 mindset would be preferable.
In the meantime, the map we and terrorists are looking at is a little bigger than America, let us not forget that, so can it Rudy.  Nobody likes you anymore.

Ba De Dum!

My dad got waylaid by a canvasser on the street yesterday morning, drumming up support for Cheney’s impeachment. Dad said he was down with the cause, and asked what he could do to help. “Give money,” she said.

He gave her three bucks.

Behind this anecdote is a question.  Now, the dad is cynical enough to have given to the vendor despite his opinion that he’s a “bit of a wacko” because of both the humor and the “truth told in jest” behind the comment “he’s eighty-four years old” and the fact that he agrees with the sentiment of impeaching Cheney.  But what do we make of the vendor?  Where does her cynicism pop into the picture?  There are two immediate options: either she believes in Larouche and has come up with the line “he’s eighty-four years old” as a manner of parting reluctant people out of their money, or she has glommed onto what was the most immediate manner of addressing the political situation she disapproves of, and cynically is passing through Larouche as an intermediary on the way to that cause.

A third option is the Ruth Williams slow-burn realization that this is crap, and thus she slowly peters out to the end.

………………………..

Rummaging through this book (and I link to the wikipedia article instead of my usual Amazon.com link to books because the links to reviews and criticisms of the book — ie: its possible faults — are instructive), I’m bemusing myself with the question of “How do you dissolve a cult?”  There are no particularly easy answers, the members of a cult have been particularly groomed and tested and retested for loyalty’s sake.  I gravitate toward the end of the chapter concerning Marlene Dixon, which parallels the similar path to a cult’s destruction as Greg Healy.  Reagan / Thatcher made the farthest reaches of left-wing thought propagated by the Masters look irrelevant to the situation at hand.  Political cults, unlike religious ones, are vulnerable to broader movements in politics that can make it harder for leaders to justify to the membership their sacrifices.  Our friend in Virginia has that covered: he moved from the far left to the far right, and has feigned across the more mainstream political spectrum ever since, without really changing any positions.

The third element, critical to the process, is a breakup of the leadership group.  Dixon survived as long as she did because her worst features and corruption were hidden from the membership by a tight circle of leaders.  Most important was her second in command, Sandra.  In 1982 Dixon turned viciously against Sandra.  Sandra at the same time expressed her disdain for the group and began to toy with the idea of leavaing with a small coterie to set up a think tank in Washington.

It was the opening provided by divisions in the leadership that permitted an outpouring of the rage of the members against the guru.  The members of the DWP were worn out from working “seven day weeks and until 1 am most nights for years.”  Many had lived in poverty in collective houses and yearned for a more balanced life with some time for family and career.  It became harder for the members to believe that the very real sacrifices they were making were actually producing results.  Once the full extent of Dixon’s alcoholism, irrationality and privileged life-style was exposed to the members, there was no putting the pieces back together again.

And on and on.  Back to Larouche, I mention that Dennis Kucinich, on the edge of the Democratic Party, has issued letters of impeachment for Dick Cheney.  It is not too hard to imagine that the channels of distribution of the idea came from out of Larouche, by way of cultural osmosis, really.  (Kucinich heard it sometime, maybe received letters from constituents recommending he needs to impeach Cheney First, etc.) Larouche claims to be in working relations with Bill Clinton, so even the sort-of-accidental influence of a less than central figure pushing an DOA bill must be a little off.  Nonetheless, it is enough to write up for the purpose of convincing his followers that he yields influence.  (Hey!  He takes credit for the ideas behind a Chuck Hagel op-ed piece on Iraq, even as I murmur that I remember distinctly the “Larouche Doctrine” included the absolutely insane necessity that it be referred to “the Larouche Doctrine” — by way of his only real political belief of “See that Crisis?  Me For Dictator!”–, meaning whatever else the sensical ideas of convening the neighboring nations in a conference and whatever political divisions Hagel has in mind for Iraq may or may not have in common with Larouche’s ramblings on the topic, it ends up having no relation whatsoever.)
I wish that every person in Larouche’s orbit over the age of 30 would just walk out and quit right now.  This would leave Larouche with what he seems to desire at the moment, what his organization has built its temples of fantasy (paging Robert Beltan) and geared it toward — the “Larouche Youth Movement”.  In a sense taking him back to his beginning of a small group of grad students, albeit a number more, devoid of long-timers who have a moment’s pause if they can recollect a bit of a sense of history.  (Do not personally recall Reagan.)   (That covers the baby-boomers, the tweeners, and Generation X.  I detect that the Tweeners are lumped in with the baby-boomers in the Larouche screeds against baby-boomers, and the odd recommendation of suicide.)

……………

From the factnet board, a bit of comedy by the perhaps over-committed, perhaps not, ex-Larouchite:

Big things are taking place in Windy Hill , the secret location of the man who has successfully predicted the end of the world, economy and Hegla’s shopping trips for over 3 decades.

“Those fiends” snarled Lyn, as barked on the LarouchePhone to make sure that the LPAC quota of 10,000 hits a day is met, or humanity is doomed as we know it.

You know, had a Democrat been in the White House, and certainly a Clinton, there would be a bigger proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theorists off of the edge of the right-wing, and by that dent off of the edge of the Republican constituency, as opposed to where we are now with a Bush in the White House (The CIA’s bastard son), and the necessity of The Nation to publish Altermann editorials wagging the smattering of some of the “9/11 Truth”ers in the midst of some meetings with largely liberal groupings.  None of which is to even toss an arrow at the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but is by way of observation.

I am surprised that I can not find the story of Virgin Atlantic Airlines’ giving Loose Change 2 as an option on Alex Jones’s “prisonplanet.com”.  I have to surf through the web to find an editorial against this decision, and by way of explanation:

On Tuesday Virgin Atlantic revealed it would present among its onboard viewing options Loose Change 2, a revolting conspiracy fantasy – its makers prefer the description “documentary” – which claims to present evidence that September 11 was an inside job pulled off by the wicked government of George W. Bush.

In other words, 9/11 is the greatest con since France tricked everyone into believing it was a nation of intellectuals. Loose Change 2 – the second version contains extra portions of stupidity – makes similar claims, all of them ridiculous, and easily demolished by the non-idiotic.

Your little update:

Virgin Airlines has pulled a controversial internet documentary on 9/11 from its in-flight entertainment system after complaints from bloggers and radio shows.

Fair enough, and I’m not surprised, and have no real opinion on the matter.  Except to say this: why would anyone want to watch a presentation, conspiracy-oriented or not, pretend for a moment that it is issued straight from the government, of airplanes crashing into the World Trade Center (and crashed into a Pennsylvania wheat field) while riding on an airplane?

Barack Obama has become the earliest presidential candidate to receive secret service protection.  This is just as well, considering how front-loaded the process is.  Mind you, Hillary Clinton has secret service protection, but that is by dent of her status as former First Lady, which solves one of the odd riddles:  The reason Barack Obama is so kill-worthy is that he is black.  In the battle to see whether the undercurrent of fear and hatred of the prospects of a black president or a female president, the test of threat assessment to arrive at Secret Service Protection has been mooted.

Pondering the imponderables, our friend Rush Limbaugh, in his usual coy way to “expose liberal hypocrisy” (if you say so) has adopted a theme song for Barack Obama.  “Barack the Magic Negro”.  It is by way of an LA Times editorial, with his assertion that “the drive by media” and “liberal bloggers” will claim Rush created it.
Sure, why not?  If it’ll get me mentioned on the show, than by all means: Rush Limbaugh created the term “Magic Negro”.  Weeeee!  Fun.
I suppose this is a teaching moment.  It is important that the word “negro” be used in the term as a reference to our uncomfortable compact to our racial attitudes of the past, and continuation into the present.  Frankly, I have come to understand all or most presidential candidates as people who are waffly enough that we project stuff onto.  We could not really get a handle on George W Bush in 2000.  Or Bill Clinton in 1992.  It is sort of why John Kerry wasn’t successful against a weakening incumbent.  Obama just adds a racial dimension to the mix.

For Rush, it really is just an excuse to throw around the term “negro”.  He will be picking up any leftover editorial comment and flogging it in a “What me worry?” manner.  I do not know if he termed “Halfrican”, but I do know he can claim to have picked up the idea of “not too black… not too white” from the political ether, and… well, if he wants to, subtley toss the Jeffersons theme song when discussing any number of black politicians.

I will say this in passing.  I have noticed an uncomfortable ease with which the word “negro” is being used, generally with an understated quotation marks around the word.  Michael Richards notwithstanding, nobody white says “nigger” — at least not in my presence.  (The “behind closed doors in the privacy of their own country club” scenario will have to play out somewhere else.)  It is almost as though we’ve quietly shuffled from that to the other “n” word.  But what’s in a word? — I don’t know… Truman would have used that term and not had the faintest idea what an “African American” is.

Granted, we have a sort of permanent silly season in politics, and the presidential race is… absurd in its longevity of focus.  (I suppose that wouldn’t be too ridiculous if it weren’t personality – driven, and narrowed to 2 or 3 candidates to each party, but it is.)  Somewhere past asking Giuliani for the cost of milk or asking Romney for his favorite book, something… popped out at me.  A certain cynicism from members of the chattering class in a transcript of the MSNBC program Tucker, exclamation point.

Tucker asks his interchangable pundit… who would kill more people at whim, Giuliani or Clinton.

………..

CARLSON: I wonder why it is then that Hillary Clinton, once you take a look at the records and what they say, clearly the most conservative, why is it that she is the most disliked, more dislike, I would say, by Republicans than anybody, including Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel?

BARTLETT: I think she is the most disliked by Democrats.

CARLSON: That`s true actually. Why is that?

BARTLETT: Something about her personality. It grates on people. I don`t think — She doesn`t have her husband`s winning personality. Let`s face it, she has to work at it a lot harder, but, you know, we have elected presidents who have had a lot of worse personalities than her; Richard Nixon, for example. I think if she can position herself as the  candidate of competence, she will have a very good chance. I think Republicans and conversation are wrong to underestimate her.

CARLSON: Would you personally vote for her?

BARTLETT: I would vote for her against some people. I don`t know.

CARLSON: Like who?

BARTLETT: Well, I`m just not very happy about any of the Republicans running. I think Giuliani seems like — has an authoritarian personality.

CARLSON: Wait, wait, and Hillary Clinton doesn`t? You`re saying that he has a more authoritarian personality than Hillary Clinton. If both of them had absolute power, let`s just say, a mind experiment, if they had absolute power, who would kill more?

BARTLETT: That`s a tough question. I think Giuliani would kill more.

I think he`s a tougher guy. And I don`t mean that in a positive way, really. I mean probably the guy who looks the best to me right now is the guy who`s, you know, in the wings, Fred Thompson, but that`s only because I don`t really know exactly where he stands on the issues. He`s just a potentially better candidate than the guys they have running.
……………..

Pausing for a minute, all I can do is pause.

Fantastic election coming up!  Hillary Clinton versus Rudy Giuliani — Skull and Bones Decision 2008: Elect your mass-killer.

I’m only passing on words from mainstream conservative media honchos.