Kronberg sues; Blumenthal’s interview sheds a bit of light

I never understood the point of the public campaign against Molly Kronberg.  Sure, the private and internal items made sense in that purely vindictive slashing evil fashion, but propelling these items into the public domain (even as nobody was really reading — this was at the time they were evidentally deliberating on which way to go with the new Obama Administration) produced such confused elements as Jerry Pyenson (sp?) posting a Kronberg – headline to a 9/11 Truth board.  I guess this particular “campaign” is best explained as simply stating that they’re a little bit unhinged and a lot paranoid.  Beyond that, it is best not to waste time making sense of the senseless — their internal frustrations spilled out externally.

Roughly concurrent to my posting after seeing the factnet posts, I see Kheris posted on it here (and at another blog), and Nicholas Benton “tweeted” it hereDennis King posted this a bit later, propels it to a modest audience, and the “Legal Times” (blog) posted it here.  And also we have this from the Loudon Times.  Note too the additional edit on the wikipedia entry for “Kenneth Kronberg“, unfortunately having to explain his sourceas if to appease your Leather Stocking (“The blog post contains material that has been disputed in earlier discussions here” — Heh!) and (it’s coming) zillion twelth iteration of “Herschel Krustofsky”.
While I’m browsing wikipedia for these things, I will note how problematic these items are for wikipedia’s viability, and leave it at that.  As is taking leatherstocking’s disingenuity about “larouche-planet” published documents seriously.

Last night, my radio left on at the end of the night as Mike Malloy (on KPOJ) finishes his show,.  Next show is one I never listen to — I don’t even know her name right off the bat (Looking it up, it’s Nicole Sandler.)  And at the top of her program she references some Hitler Obama Swastika waver encounter she had for a town hall meeting with Henry Waxman roughly concurrent with the Barney Frank — Rachel Brown meeting, and promotes for next hour’s interview with the author of a piece for “The Daily Beast”, Max Blumenthal who “Found out who is behind these Hitler Obama posters.  Lyndon Larouche … Lyndon Larouche??? He’s still alive?”

Ba da bing, ba da boom.  Or, to quote wonkette.com :”1988 Called, and they want their Larouchies back!”  Obviously the product of the same media black-out that has a confession every so often slip through, such as with the first sentence of this article.  (“Past the filter” indeed.)

Blumenthal says what we basically know and adds little to, for instance to quote myself:

“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.”

Noteworthy, public imagination has it as often as not that they lag.

Blumenthal clearly alluded to Jeremiah Duggan and/or Kenneth Kronberg, without reference to their name, though wisely did not head into an area that he did not have the facts at his disposal and was a tangeant from his broader political point.  “The cult is not terribly interesting”, except inasmuch as we get something like — to quote the cult:

One senior political operative told EIR that the Republican Party, desperate to regroup after the electoral defeats of 2006 and 2008, picked up the LaRouche attacks on the Obama health-care swindle, studied the documentation, concluded that LaRouche was absolutely correct, and jumped on the bandwagon. By last week, according to the source, every faction within the GOP had picked up on the LaRouche message—to the point that a frantic Karl Rove jumped in, to warn Republicans that they were losing control over the issue to LaRouche.

And Rush Limbaugh is doing nothing to refute such a proposition.  For instance a listener calls in to suggest the “Hitler” analogies are counter-productive and off base (gives the opposition amunition), and Limbaugh doubles down with the old suggestion that “I’m beginning to think you’re a Seminar Caller”, the term used when a deviating opinion or thought somehow manages to flow into the show.

The next paragraph in the cult’s item here, though, serves to demonstrate the folly of at least not carefully crafting your “partisan problem” with Larouche.

Furthermore, a wide range of Democratic Party-linked voices, from The Nation’s David Greider, to the New York Times’s Frank Rich, to cultural commentator Eli Siegel, to Arianna Huffington, have also joined the attack on President Obama, denouncing him for cutting a dirty backroom deal with “Big Pharma” and “Big Insurance,” and accusing him of being a corporativist—i.e., a fascist.

They think they’re propelling events, with you part of it no matter where you stand.  Hell, they even take credit for the juvenile Uranus pun.  The problem I have with Chip Berlet’s post here is that, whatever else you can say about Larouche and company in relation to the broader agitators (and I see that he subsequently wrote on the broader agitators and assorted demonstrators) — the Larouchies remain interlopers and framing any agitations into their own movements, and not part and parcel to the rest of it.  (Hm.:    Finding a large Lyndon LaRouche pamphlet in my parents’ house was somewhat disturbing. … Mental note: trash them as soon as I leaf through, after spotting on lying around after a “Deployment” happens, to avoid that problem.)

But the part of Blumenthal’s discussion that was most noteworthy for me, aligning to both what we know about Jeremiah Duggan and what is conjectured about his death, and aligning to Peter E. Tennenbaum (“Earnest One”)’s testimony on his experiences with the cult, was his description of a visit to a meeting of Larouche’s young recruits.  After watching them being told to “Give Up Their Dreams” and alerted to the grim task at hand in fighting the Oligarchical Forces, he challenged the speaker to quit “scaring and taking advantage of these young, vulnerable lives” and “quit twisting their minds”.  He then had to rush off, and run to his car to leave, and as he did so, the Larouchies surrounded his car in mob mentality fashion, and to make a break for it (and I suppose the Larouche org would twist these words to suit their purposes) he explained that he had to “practically run them over” in escaping the place.  If you can find the top of the second hour of this program anywhere, it is worth a listen.

(One last note: Yeah, but let’s get one thing straight: he is no Mihkail Gorbachev.)

One Response to “Kronberg sues; Blumenthal’s interview sheds a bit of light”

  1. Rachel Holmes Says:

    I hope you don’t mind my doing this on the comment section–if so, I’ll understand.

    I just wanted to reinforce the line which I believe appears at the end of Dennis King’s press release–namely, that anyone who has information relevant to the Kronberg v. LaRouche case should send it to

    John J.E. Markham, II
    MARKHAM & READ
    One Commercial Wharf West
    Boston, Massachusetts 02110
    Tel: (617) 523-6329
    Fax: (617) 742-8604
    E-mail: jmarkham@markhamread.com

    I mention this because I have a shrewd notion that there are many, many out there who have all sorts of relevant information….

    Just an educated guess.

Leave a Reply