Maybe it’s been a matter of “I Care, but I don’t care all that much” — my motivation falling just short of being willing to wade through a huge quantity of stuff — and for all I know if I simply typed in just the right phrase in google I’d have the answer immediately — but I have been wanting to see Webster Tarpley in his own words explain his disassociation with Lyndon Larouche and his organization. I have seen such in second hand references — probably most obviously in relation to downplaying his association in the comments page at wikipedia
— and the phrase has has for the Larouche Youth Movement is “Maoist Cult”. I have no reason to disbelieve the second hand accounts from his sympathizers, and indeed every reason to believe them.
Many people, quite a few within the “9/11 Truth Movement” actually, have viewed him suspiciously leaped to “Larouche infiltrator and Agent”. I do not believe so, but the man has given little reason to disabuse anyone of such. To put simply, “If Webster Tarpley is not ‘Larouchism without Larouche’, then ‘Larouchism without Larouche’ has no meaning.” Of the various ex-members categorized as such — see a category of links on the Larouche Planet website — Webster Tarpley is the most undistilled example, such that I imagine his leaving the Larouche organization as mostly an issue of gaining Intellectual Property over his work and gaining various avenues for profit. It is notable that in any Tarpley-sanctioned biographical sketch — within such and such a “9/11 Truth Anthology” or his written books — his work after the cult is presented as a continuation of his work produced within the cult, and his various “research” theories moved along with him.
So, this email
message is not in any way surprising. His answer is about what one should expect. Re-order organization history to deny culpability in, I guess Larouche’s spot in the Oligarchy. Place a “Fall” in the organization as conveniently happening after he left. While I suppose it is good to see that he keeps up with current Larouche happenings — mentioning one of Larouche’s failed predictions — I’m still left with that question of “Anything else?”
But the single sentence which serves as the most telling sentence, and the hinge of his message to Economist “N”:
Accordingly, I suggest that we forget about LaRouche and see what can be done for Latvia.
And, if I may add: I should think there is no time to lose.
Classic. Move along, nothing to see here. Overcome that Sales Objection, and Sell that Snake Oil NOW!!! The fate of Latvia hangs in the balance.
In other news: Howie G throws out a couple of names of candidates for low office I should be aware of: Art Dunn, a LaRouche endorser in 2004, now running for the Dem nomination in California’s 17th C.D.; and Ryan Maher, a South Dakota State Senator running for re-election, who has endorsed the LPAC call as part of his platform.
I do not believe anyone else on that list fits my purview here — but I will be sure to look up and down Art Dunn and Ryan Maher. Good to see the Larouche org is making a jump start and not putting themselves in the situation they had with Carol Johnson Smith — where I outcovered their coverage of her campaign.
We also see that Obama referenced the Larouchies, or rather the “Obama Hitler” posters. The Larouchies had their collective orgasm as they inferred their vast Square Root of 2 Hidden Hand Powers in Global Politics, or counter Tarpley (heh!): What this means is that the credibility and influence of Lyndon LaRouche and his Political Action Committee have never been greater; they are seen as the only force that is not discredited.
The headline that pays: “Larouche: It’s Time for an ‘Unnecessary President Act”!
What — are they anarchists — “We need no leader!” — or is this the final stage for a Communist Utopia? In the meantime, the “Unnecessary President Act” is that uncomfortably weird game — eliminate him, huh?
Leaving aside that,
and going to this headline: US Population Goes into Angry Revolt Against the Mustachioed President
When the Obama Administration moved to kill the Glass-Steagall amendment and any anti-derivatives aspect of its so-called financial reform bill, Lyndon LaRouche remarked that if the U.S. Senate went along, the U.S. population would no longer see the Congress—and the President—as legitimate, and begin to act on that assessment. In the week following the Senate’s capitulation to Obama’s pressure, that assessment is being borne out in the streets.
The most dramatic indication came in San Francisco on May 25, when President Obama showed up at a fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer, only to be greeted by a widely disparate crowd of more than 1,000 angry protestors. The protestors included Tea Party members, those protesting non-action on the BP atrocity, pro- and anti-immigration groups, and those with no constituency at all. Organizers for the LaRouche Democrat Summer Shields campaign also found an open response to their presentation of an immediate solution to the economic collapse: impeach Obama, restore Glass-Steagall, and begin a 50-year policy to rebuild the nation. They reported that many of the protesters were unable to articulate exactly why they were there, but that they felt driven to protest against the President—a clear indication of the mass strike ferment which has been increasing in the United States since August 2009.
The clear indication of a “mass strike” within a typical San Francisco protest is that some of the protesters had no concise explanation of what they were protesting? This either is a statement of the Larouche Organization’s cynicism, within their fevered imaginings, or is a statement of their purpose. “What do we want?” “Stuff.” “When do we want it?” “Eh.” Where’s the Glass-Steagal in that?
Well, read up and read on from San Francisco’s news media.
Well, better than the protests in Los Angeles.
While Los Angeles Opera’s production of Richard Wagner’s epic “The Ring of the Nibelung” was the main event at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion on Saturday night, two dozen protesters outside did their best to upstage opening night.
A well-dressed crowd gathered for the start of the company’s first full production of the 19-hour cycle, which began with a performance of “Das Rheingold,” the opening chapter of the Wagner’s magnum opus.
They were greeted by about 25 protesters who stood outside on the Music Center Plaza with banners that denounced Wagner and the county’s decision late last year to approve an emergency loan for the financially stretched opera company.
One banner read: “Wagner: Loved by Nazis, Rejected by Humans.” Another said: “L.A. County: $14 Million to promote Nazi Wagner, Layoffs for Music Teachers.”
The protesters identified themselves as supporters for Lyndon LaRouche, the eccentric political activist and frequent presidential candidate. The group handed out fliers published by the Schiller Institute, an organization founded by LaRouche’s wife, Helga.
The fliers denounced Wagner’s anti-Semitic personal views and criticized the county for rescuing the opera company. “Does Los Angeles County have nothing better to do … than bail out L.A. Opera, so that it can celebrate the monstrous sexual fantasies, and the cult of violence, of that vile anti-Semite, Wagner?” read the flier.
For the Love of Sweet Baby Jes — oh, whatever.
A sense of purpose?
In other news — call it RAPLYM, as the historical origins of that organization come to the forefront, and the time may have passed but remind me again to holler over to David Frum — though I’m not entirely sure what I want him to answer.