I’m reading a Birchite written biography of Robert Welch.  One thing it has done is cement for me the answer to the question “which side of an ideological divide do you slot Lyndon Larouche?”.  Yes, with all due respect to various Marxist memoirs and historical left-wing sect pamphlet propaganda I’ve looked at, it is “right”, qualified as it is with idiosyncracies aplenty and from out a Trotskyite core (enough to lead him to a pause).  But perhaps this question entangles itself with what you want to focus on: the policy apparatus behind those large public works projects aren’t getting us anywhere, the conspiratorial worldview has gotten them places.

I have long noticed the Larouchite love affair with the “they call him Marxist, Fascist, Left, Right” argument.  I’ve never been sure where this is supposed to get them anywhere, but I guess the love affair with this is as good a reason as any to bounce about the political landscape as they “flank” various issues and movements (hm).  It is a fallacious argument, made by plenty of more mainstream pols.  Bill O’Reilly uses it with regularity.  He reads a letter calling him a Right-wing fanatic.  He then reads a letter calling a Left-wing fanatic.  And he finishes with a letter affirming his “if you’re getting it from both sides, you must be doing something right”.  The lesson, of course, is that you have a good chance of getting a letter read on the air if you write calling him a left-wing fanatic.  (A few years’ ago a liberal blogger tested that thesis and hit pay-dirt.)  The generic retort to Larouche is, of course, to be content to push all that aside and settle on “Fruitcake.”  (Or, Mark Levin’s “Looney Tunes“.  Another neat bit of invective: Ladouche.)

But this “slot ideological placement” is only intermittently an interesting question — the cult mostly just slides everything into a projection of itself — ’tis what a cult does.  A different question, far more pertinent, occupies my thoughts when I consider the Larouchites (dissecting an rare species of exotic floral.)  Slowly and surely, a few comments and questions have emitted over the Internet which slot recent Republican commentary on Obama Administration health care policy with Lyndon Larouche’s months long campaign — best illustrated by sticking a mustache on Obama’s face.  Representative Virginia Foxx threw out the Eugenics equation!!  And also, did you see that elderly woman at a Townhall meeting?  Notable, though, is that even Representative Foxx isn’t saying Obama is physically/literally cribbing from Hitler’s policies.  Which is to suggest, we can go ahead and cite this is as a perversion of a criticism from Betsy McCaughey, thank you very much — with some broad “eugencs” blouters from various sources, that include the deluge of Larouche.

But the boiler room over in Leesburg may as well consider this a “hit” regardless.  An observation from the Bircher book — the Birchers took credit for more than they were due in their battles against the Illuminati and Communist infested world.  (Also Welch spoke out against the encroaching Dark Ages, a Spenglerite notion I suppose but one that naturally allows for a “design to fail” as well a version of…

“It’s either LaRouche’s solution or a Dark Age. You decide.”

An interesting thing… even bonker quasi-supporters seem able to grasp this “design to fail”.  See, from Transition #743, 1997 — an interview with Kelefa Sanneh and Killah Priest:

KS:  What about someone like Lydon Larouche?  He’s another person who claims to be exposing truths that the government is trying to hide.  Larouche has had a high profile in the African American community ever since his 1992 presidential bid, when he chose the black activist Reverend James Bevel to be his running mate.  What do you think of Larouche?

KP:  Yeah, the book is deep.  He was part of the plan and they gypped him.  I don’t know what they did.  But Cooper is like Larouche: the Armegeddan that he wants to prevent is destined to happen.  [followed by some more bonkers commentary that’d make you cringe.]

The database I plucked that out is likely available to you too.  But if pressed, I’ll finish that “Killah Priest” quote, as well go back and drdge up the question I am sure is on your mind:  What has Ward Churchill said about Lyndon Larouche?

The question with the Larouche cult’s particular brand of demougery: what measurement can we use to suggest they’ve injected something into our discourse, and to what degree have they simply reflected some bad impulses?  It is, I think, mostly the latter but there are times when the former does impugn on us, and there are a few small times when there are not clear – cut answers.  I guess I’m willing to give them all credit for “Prescott Bush financed the Nazis”, only faintly the great Leo Strauss game.

When I referenced Spengler, on the tip of my mind only due to a random comment seen somewhere, I am of course refering to Oswald Spengler, and not Goldman (wikipedia page in error, incidentally) — though I guess I may as well be referencing both.  But to go on with that element.:

The prospects for all of Eurasia now hang on the probable impact of two reactions of Europe to the present, terminal financial crisis of the virtually doomed U.S. Obama administration: the September 27 general election in Germany and the presently inevitable breakdown-crisis of the U.S.A.’s system during the interval of approximately Oct. 2-12, 2009.

Unless the present U.S. Obama administration is taken over by sane forces within the Administration and Congress prior to September, the oncoming U.S. crisis now scheduled for early October 2009 will actually explode, like a bomb set off by a proximity fuse during the period of the run-up to the Sept. 27 general election—or, in the alternative, even earlier.

By sometime no later than early through middle September, all present operating delusions about their own prospects, among leading Eurasian nations will have been exploded: if the U.S. goes down, the entire world goes down, and the debris of the explosion will be a planet-wide new dark age which no presently existing nation of the world would survive in a recognizable form.

Well, that keeps this question in the minds of the faithful, I suppose.  The faithless will move on.:

But what I did not agree with-was trying to link Obama to Hitler!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE??
I have a copy of a booklet that the LaRouche supporters were giving out entitled: “ACT NOW TO STOP OBAMA’S NAZI HEALTH PLAN!!!
The front cover of the booklet shows Obama photoshopped in with Hitler and some of his Nazi supporters.
This to me, is TOO STRONG OF A STATEMENT-ONE CAN MAKE THE POINT THAT THEY BELIEVE OBAMA MAY BE SACRIFICING THE HEALTH OF THE MENTALLY ILL AND POOR BUT LINKING HIM WITH HITLER DOESN’T FLY WITH ME!!!

And the explanation for the current questioning from these guys:

That was annoying enough on its own, but one of the guys blocked my path. “Would you like to give our President a shave?” he asked.

I really didn’t like being impeded in my quest for a sandwich. “Crazy losers” I muttered, and steered around him. His associate called after me in a jeering tone, “see you next fiscal year!”

Next fiscal year? Was he saying that when I saw next year’s deficit I’d come around to their side? I highly doubted it. But that kind of false confidence is what keeps people like that out on the streets with their placards, year after year. Anyway, thankfully I was back on path to the Brown Bag, and my quest for the almost-perfect sandwich was soon fulfilled.

While I recognize nobody reads this stuff except the terminally curious (because we can’t quite tell the difference between the sort of thing just (oh for the love of god, I had the perfect auto-generated word salad link) and this sort of thing — skip to italics), it is pretty evident that the Org has positioned itself to wander back to support of Obama.  It is in the “Unless the present U.S. Obama administration is taken over by sane forces within the Administration and Congress prior to September” equation, and the equation within:   On the basis of that defeat, a new team of economists, grounded in the reality of this existential crisis, can be brought in.

Such is the meaning of “Would you like to give our President a shave?” — only you, through the agias of supporting these supporters of a negligible fringe cult leader — can free Obama of his Hitlerian mustache!  Does that mean anything?  Not really.

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 2nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm and is filed under The LaRouche Challenge, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.