bullet points

I.  Yeah, why in the world would he have “some beef” with that guy?

II.  “I have seen the letter and it expresses ‘tremendous sympathy’ for Jeremiah’s family. That is the first expression of condolence from the institute since my son died.

III.  Say, whatever happened to the BAE Scandal?  Wasn’t that a “world changing event” — changing the world scene in “fundamental ways”, the supposed cause of much grief in Loudon (and the reason to offer psychiatric services)?

IV.  i am very much surprised that the kremlinologists here gathered have not yet mentioned a recent development in the larouche organization, one that may be most significant…those of you familiar with my posts may recall that i regularly monitor the audio file postings on the lym site, and over the last 2 or 3 weeks i am seeing helga promoted as never before…beginning with her august 11th appearance on the larouche show, she is represented half a dozen times: a speech before a cadre school on the 12th; an interview with jeff rense on the 13th; a speech to the ecuadoran lym on the 17th; a speech to a detroit cadre school on the 18th; and an appearance on the butch valdez show out of the phillipines on the 26th…

all of this, mind you, solo, without lyn…in the same time frame no other member has appeared more than once in the audio files, and lyn, not at all…a situation without precedent over the last 3 or 4 years that i’ve been paying close attention to the group…

and, of course, perhaps even more significant than helga’s sudden omnipresence is the absence of lyn..not one posting since august 4th, when he addressed an la cadre school…

incidentally, there are TWO postings from helga on that date, speaking before the mexican lym, one in english, the other in spanish…

so what is going on here?…is lyn sick?…are we witnessing a new leader, clawing her way to the top?…or is lyn simply pre-positioning helga to be the face of the movement when the other helga, hillary clinton, takes center stage? 
The answer is blowing in the wind.

V.  Makes sense. 

5 Responses to “bullet points”

  1. Rachel Holmes Says:

    Nick Benton is not entirely right about LaRouche’s importance, although he is certainly in no way at fault for not giving an interview. LaRouche is insignificant politically, philosophically, and historically, but he is extremely significant to those whose lives he has ruined–and those whose lives he has contributed to ending.

    So it is not a mere frivolity to be concerned about LaRouche; it is not silliness to say that this is a Bad Man who should be exposed. If the environment in the LaRouche organization was aversive enough to drive Ken Kronberg to suicide, doesn’t that fact alone seem morally repugnant? (Not to mention the nervous breakdowns and rampant alcohol abuse, broken marriages, strings of abortions, and other wreckage that marks LaRouche’s path.)

  2. Justin Says:

    I am not saying I agree with him — and have other thoughts on why he is significant enough to warrant a thorough inspection and study–, but I see where he is coming from for him personally. Clearly he thought it and Larouche important enough to cover the morning briefing and Kronberg suicide in the first place.

    I do tact back slightly to the dates he gives — “saw its ugliness in the late 70s, exited in the early 80s”… meted out with: made media comments after the 1986 Illinois Primary victories, asked that Dukakis-related question to Reagan in 1988 for EIR, but I am not sure what I am supposed to do with that slight discreprency.

  3. Rachel Holmes Says:

    Benton left around 1988 or thereafter–I believe he was still LaRouche correspondent, or EIR correspondent, or whatever, at White House and in D.C. in 1988.

    What he may be reflecting–this is very common for ex-members, myself included–is the point at which he DECIDED to leave–that could well have been the early 1980s, and he could have begun the long, slow, painful, strange process of detaching himself from this man whom he had discovered to be a disaster.

    That makes sense psychologically and also accounts for why he still seemed to be around in the late 1980s. I think he must have left shortly after the election that year.

    I’m not quarreling with him myself–and I do agree with you pretty much completely that I see where he is coming from for himself. I just don’t want people to lose sight of the real damage LaRouche does–which is easy to lose sight of, because he (LaRouche) is such a far cry from the world-historical whirlwind he thinks he is.

  4. revenire Says:

    Rachel I believe Benton left for other reasons than stated above. Research it and ask former members to tell what the reasons were. Benton did not leave on the “long, slow, painful, strange” journey route and I would be very interested in where you heard that fairy tale. I know why Benton left, you don’t. Nick knows too… you don’t or you won’t say. Let’s have some ex-member, current members, or anyone who wants to spill the beans come out and say what actually happened with Nick.

    “LaRouche is insignificant politically, philosophically, and historically…”

    Really? So when Portillo nationalized the banks on September 1, 1982 that was insignificant? Not to the banks Rachel. On May 23, 1982 LaRouche met with López Portillo in Mexico and presented Operation Juarez to the president of Mexico. September 1982 Portillo moves to implement Operation Juarez and Portillo stuck to that fact until the day he died Rachel and you damn well know it or you’re just some internet troll/fraud.

    López Portillo said this, sixteen years later: “As President, I had a relationship with Mr. L.H. LaRouche of respect for his solidly independent and tenacious ideological position, which I share in large measure, largely because of the adherence he had achieved from a group of young Mexicans, whom I equally respect and admire.”

    Rachel you tell me this: when LaRouche met with the López Portillo, then president of Mexico, and Portillo nationalized the banks — on LaRouche’s advice — that had impact in the world didn’t it? (Like I am going to listen to your opinions either way Rachel.) Up until Portillo’s death he stood by LaRouche and LaRouche’s ideas. Now you can slander Portillo all you want but the facts are the facts.

    The same goes for Dr. Fred Wills of Guyana. He stood at the UN, I believe in 1976, and called for a Third World debt moratorium. He was also steadfast in his support of LaRouche until the day he died.

    Neither of these two men: one the President of Mexico and one the Prime Minister of Guyana ever wavered so I guess they were really brainwashed by Lyndon?

    I can go on re: the “insignificant contribution” of LaRouche if you want.


    Is Meryvn Dymally brainwashed?

    “Dymally is currently the Chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus. In a distinguished career in politics now in its fifth decade, Dymally has been a trailblazer. He was elected Lt. Governor of California in 1974 – the first African-American elected to statewide office; and was elected to the U.S. Congress in 1980, serving as Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. As Chairman, he took on the FBI’s ‘Fruehmenschen’ program of targeting African-American elected officials. After a brief period of ‘retirement,’ he was elected to the California State Assembly in 2002.”

    That’s from the EIR site and you can confirm it by calling Dymally’s office but you don’t want that because it would shatter your bitter little world wouldn’t it?

    Capitol Office: State Capitol — P.O. Box 942849 –Sacramento, CA 94249-0052 — Tel: (916) 319-2052
    District Office: 322 W. Compton Boulevard, Suite 100 — Compton, CA 90220 — Tel: (310) 223-1201

    Go ahead Rachel and make the call. Tell Dymally what a mistake he is making. See how far you get. Dymally took on the FBI’s assault on black elected officials Rachel. I don’t think he is going to waver in the face of some blogger.

    Here’s another tidbit for you (I suspect you know all of this and just utter things that are false as a habit):


    “To National Black Caucus of State Legislators

    “State Rep. Juanita Walton (D) of St. Louis, representing the 81st District in Missouri’s House of Representatives, filed this resolution with the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, which will meet in Arkansas in December. Representative Walton is also president of the National Order of Women Legislators, and past president of the National Foundation of Women Legislators.

    “Resolution to Congress — Implement the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act of 2007”

    Was she brainwashed too? Call her and tell her all about it. I am sure she’s waiting to hear from bloggers.

    Rachel were you a full time Labor Committee member? I would love to know where and who the NC was there. Like I said > I have never been a full time “cult” member but do know a bit about the organization.

    I will sign off, for now, with the following and then tell me again how LaRouche is just some crackpot that no one of any import listens to. I assure you the day Portillo nationalized the banks a great many people were freaked and I am talking about that cabal (heh) of bankers because Portillo was ready to drop the Debt Bomb but Brazil and Argentina, under threat, left Lopez hanging out to dry.


    And on Sept. 9 and 10, 2002, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of his historic bank nationalization, the Mexican daily Excélsior ran a lengthy interview with the ex-President. A humorous exchange occurred when López Portillo was asked about the fact that the majority of Mexico’s banks are today foreign-owned:

    “Is it difficult to recover the banks?” Excélsior asked the man who had nationalized them.

    “Of course.”

    “But, how can they be recovered?”

    “With a new expropriation.

    “But we don’t have a nationalist President, as when you expropriated the banks in 1982. How can it be done now?”

    “With balls, my friend. From that standpoint, I do believe I was [a nationalist].”

    As for the LaRouche question, López Portillo was uncompromising. As he put it succinctly, in remarks made after listening to the keynote address given by Helga Zepp-LaRouche before the Mexican Society of Geography and Statistics in Mexico City, on Dec. 1, 1998: “It is now necessary for the world to listen to the wise words of Lyndon LaRouche.”

  5. revenire Says:

    As stated above, without any comment from the folks here — the people listed above support this foreclosure act (so do a lot of others it seems) and are they all zombies? No one replied because they can’t refute the above.

    People know why Benton left. It is not because he was “sick and tired” of old man Lyndon. Far from it…

    I love politics and it isn’t always pretty — just look at the debates we have in the country.

    The recent “Obama isn’t wearing his American flag pin” was a classic. He has to wear a pin to prove he is a patriot? I saw that on the daily Show and Colbert last night and wow is all I can say. What’s next? The media folks that challenged Obama’s patriotism were either putting on a circus act or getting really close to being fascists. Lewis Black did a good job of destroying their act just like Colbert mopped the floor with Bush at National Press Club White House Correspondents Dinner last year. Colbert took the press and the president and held up a mirror to them and the laughs turned nervous. I loved it.

    The odd thing is LaRouche was at that event and how he gets invited is beyond me. I’ve heard he was also at the 2007 one but Greenspan, or was it Kissinger, didn’t want to shake his hand.

    Now, I consider Kissinger a war criminal and Greenspan a dangerous fool. I, of course, had to ask LaRouche before I could have those opinions.


Leave a Reply