something is amiss over in LaLaLand

Scott McLemme wrote something. And then he wrote some more things.

A different phrase from that review of Dialectical Economics stayed with McLemme than stayed with me. So it is “one man party” — of which the world is out of step — where I keep using from that review “‘Me for Dictator’ type”. Either one, a remarkable insight from a very puzzled reviewer who did not quite know the nature of what he was reading.

I get the feeling things are off course in Larouche-land right about now. On Sunday, I sat down, looked at the latest posts on FACTNet, and thought the story of Susan Bowen — an otherwise anonymous “wacky” stray person featured in a photograph posted at flickr– was worth passing on. I am very much tempted to just cut and paste that part of the entry and stick it to that flickr page (though I guess I would have to register with flickr first)– it is a sort of pause that humanizes some individuals one otherwise dismisses out of hand as sort of autotrons, and autotrons with no back story — out of place and out of time.
As I was getting ready to log off, I refreshed the factnet page, and read that daily briefing. And I knew immediately I had to repost it here. Later, Jeff Steinberg provided more comments. It strikes me as a rather significant item on where Larouche and his “movement” is at this precise moment in time.
Lyndon Larouche is sweating hard right about now. Now, I take Larouche’s personality to desire crises more than anything, so it may well be for the best for his perverse sense of pleasure. The briefing came from maybe a week he posted a barrage of materials linking everything and everyone to the BEA Scandal, and hyped the BEA Scandal to world historic impressions. What is the BEA Scandal? Well, there are non-Larouche news sources that have covered it– it appears to be a blip. It’s a minor British government scandal, and that is about all I have to say about it. But, I took this frenzied assault to be an assault on the senses of the Larouche faithful — crisis mongering to whip them into lock-step behind a mission — a clouding of the mind. I have come to learn — and came to learn rather quickly– that this a tactic that Larouche has employed for the past three decades whenever he is facing outside scrutiny and/or inner turmoil from within his organization. (Or, in one infamous case — and a supposed origin of where Larouche turned completely bonkers and swerved his organization off course, but I have my doubts about such an analysis– in his personal life.)
Dissension, or at the least weariness, within the ranks to be exploited for generational-conflict, naturally.

So he brow-beats the “Baby-boomers”, ostensibly for their refusal to recognize the Historically important webcast on BEA. It’s part of a pattern from these baby-boomers who dared to be less than infused at his calls of crisis leading up to, and probably leading right past, his Y2K warnings of imminent stock market collapse — which I guess manifested in what any sane person would accept as standard boom and bust cycles of the Tech Stock bubble bursting.

But really, their mind is set more toward the haunting death of Ken Kronberg, or if it works toward the economic situation — the current economic situation of Larouche, Inc — which can’t print anything anymore. (I would say that I would like to get a copy of the transcript for that “historic webcast” in the next Larouche pamphlet, but dagnabit — the “Internet Strategy” gets in the way of hard copies — printed by PMR?) Larouche cannot acknowledge this, so he goes back forth to their supposed perfidy in dismissing some of his predictions.

The baby-boomers’ body language are all wrong? I will have to take his word for it. And I will have to suggest that this is a good sign. I ought to revisit that mildly ponderous, and probably misfiring in terms of actualities, post of mine “How to Dissolve a Cult”.
I do not know from Jeff Steinberg. I would not be able to spot him in a line-up, but if everyone has come to the conclusion that he is currently setting himself up for the intermediate future of Larouche’s passing, where he will pick up some pieces — old and new — and carry on with a Steinberg-ian cult, all I can say is that that fits Oscam’s Razor in terms of reading his response. Tied to the Larouche party line, but needing to find where he can soothe the needs of tired and worn out baby-boomers, he offers a couch to lie down for psychiatric sessions with Gerry Rose.

I often wonder how some things read to the non-initiated. I throw out weird references. 1974!, I post, as though that could possibly strike anybody as meaning anything, and as though I can offer up personal remembrances from several years before I was born. Well, there is a history of some less than stellar psychiatrics in the organization, and it doesn’t come out well. Reportedly there was an exodus of membership right about then. As there ought be right about now — good and bad news for Mr. Larouche — anyone fleeing the ship can be accepted in true-ex-Larouche fashion as being simps who “Didn’t Get It” and didn’t have the stomach for Changing the World.

History repeats itself.   I can’t say that in terms of Larouche that “it repeats as farce” because it was farce the first time it happened.

One Response to “something is amiss over in LaLaLand”

  1. Rachel Holmes Says:

    Exactly. In a perfect inverse (perverse?) of Karl Marx, the first time was farce, the second time tragedy.

Leave a Reply