Jeremiah Duggan report in the BBC? TO The battle-fields at WIKIPEDIA@@

It never fails.  Whenever there are new developments concerning Jeremiah Duggan and his death, or new media attention out of Britain (see here), the Larouche organization preps their response unit and hits… WIKIPEDIA!!!!!

Wikipedia is biased toward Britain and against Germany, and Slim Virgin is distorting the picture here.

Okay.  Albert Sumlin.  He’s a proud cyclist who wishes he owned a Plymouth Roadrunner.  Good to know?  Also he’s been making edits for various wikipedia articles since… April 21, 2010, eh?  Now to be fair, his edit on Kesha Rogers appears pretty appropriate.

For future reference

Meantime, Thomas Rooney is upset by wikipedia’s portrayal of the LYM.
As one of the two persons actually responsible for the birth of the LaRouche Youth Movement, I can say, authoritatively, that this article is innacurate. I’m tempted to use stronger words. If anyone is serious about the true history: thomas_rooney@hotmail.com. Leave a distinct subject, or it will probably be ignored.
All right!  Everyone, email Thomas Rooney — Co-founder of the LYM, at thomas_rooney@hotmail.com and leave a distinct subject to find out the TRUTH behind the LYM!  STOP THE LIES of the BRITISH EMPIRE!
I don’t really trust anyone who comes out of a “Basement Project“:
The next link on the home page is “The Basement Project.”  The first link on that page is a video called “Gauss and the Physical Tensor.”  After skimming the introductory paragraph, I was disinclined to go click on the video, but the train-wreck attraction of LaRouche was sinking its claws deeper and deeper and my curiosity got the best of me.  The video starts with a dark field of outer space.  As an ominous, yet exciting note played by what sounds like a decent-sized orchestra fades in, a distant rock-like object appears in the center of the screen.  A nearby planet fades into the foreground from the bottom-left corner of the as a male voice introduces the video:  “Human civilization now faces a dire threat.  Its impact has the power to wipe humanity off the face of the Earth.”  The farcically melodramatic tone of the announcer’s voice, not to mention the script, reminded me of late-60s Japanese monster flicks.  You know–the ones in which you would occasionally catch a shot of a four-legged cross between a Stegosaurus and a bee moving around by using the knees of his hind legs rather than the feet?

It is funny.  There is no right and no left.  It is all just one Massive Octupus Conspiracy to Get Larouche.  See here for evidence.

Topic 2.  I have had quite a bit of fun here, figuratively kicking the teeth in of the newly nominated Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky.  I actually wish I had started about a week or so before the election — I could see his problems coming from a mile away.  For the sake of this blog-post, I just have to point to comments from former Bush official David Frum — now a bit of an apostate among some Republicans — who, in looking at his party, actually mentioned:
Unfortunately, people eager for a strong message can be undiscriminating about the messenger. I remember in the late 1970s how much conservatives disliked Jimmy Carter’s “age of limits” message. We believed in growth, opportunity, technology – so much so that many of my friends fell (briefly) victim to Lyndon Larouche’s mad ideology, which exploited those good themes to bad ends.
A bit of predictability comes with these remarks — from Cato:
I never knew anyone who fell for Lyndon Larouche; I never even heard of any actual person who followed him; but David Frum had “many friends” who became followers of the nuttiest guy ever to run for president? That’s some band of friends.
Looking at this in the narrowest of ways:  Certainly the Larouchies trolled for and picked up money when swerving out the “Hub Ub” on the right wing / conservative in the spectrum in the late 1970s and early 1980s, espousing certain causes.  There is something that puzzles me about Fusion — in the shufflings of political and partisan alignments, it generally came to be espoused and associated with the “Right”.  I think that is kind of arbitrary.  But then again, I have a cynical thought.  The “9/11 Truth” Movement — while not entirely consigned to the “Left” is generally a hallucination associated with a Left.  This would have been flipped if the 9/11 had happened under a Democratic President.
As for the Pauls — Frum continued on and some items of debate roiledHow is it that the GOP has lost its antibodies against a candidate like Rand Paul?
Funny thing.  I am pretty sure that same word “anti-bodies” was used in description of the situation with the Democratic Party in Illinois and their two Democratic candidates.  There’s a natural difference, of course.  While certain corners of the Paul base are prone to draw out rather Larouchian ideas such as the Bilderberg’s plotted Assassination and warnings of pre-emptive vote rigging, those stem outside of the Pauls.  And we also know who has the better chance of winning an election.

Speaking of Alex Jones…
I was watching a clip of him last week, where he accused the violent exploitation movie “Machette” of being a CIA plot to incite a race war in the United States — and he dropped the somewhat standard conspiratorial phrase, “the same people who used to control the British Empire” —

To Tarpley! Howie G has … sour grapes?
Webster Tarpley is a sellout. He couldn’t make money with LaRouche, so he invented his own weird theories, mostly to sell stupid books. He should have stayed with LaRouch epac .com and done something useful.
Was that around when Tarpley was with the group?  Also, as always, sounds like a good idea to take your ideas where you can make money.  And the weird theories seem about the same, don’t they?  It’s just that you don’t get any credit for them in the org.  At least he has a face when popping up on Alex Jones.

Glass Stegal!  As supported by the former fed chairman that Larouche considered perpetuating a new Dark Ages, and as opposed by the former President he considered in the tradition of FDR.    Fairly predictably, this provision was in a rather slimy fashion brushed aside.  One step toward mediocrity as Obama happily checks this “to do” off his check list.  What does it mean?  Let’s turn to the Larouchies.

Actually, let’s don’t.  We have this:  LYNDON LAROUCHE is the answer, his party is anti-depressional. And we have a lot of … Well, according to them Chaos beckons now.  My survival depends on the passing of Glass Stegal.  Interesting.  Did I die after it was revoked?
Maybe there’s something from Greece that we can take in?
Funny thing about that dog.  A similar situation is taking place in the deployments of the Lyndon Larouche organization.  A small yellow dog keeps appearing in city after city.  It appears to be the same dog, and so has been given a nickname:  Archimides.  Now, in Greece Kanellos is said to “Always be on the side of the Protesters”.  It’s hard to make of what Archimedes is doing — he just wanders in, takes a leak on the card table, and leaves.

I always thought that reading up on classical history was supposed to give some sense of Historical Perspective, but what do I know?  An idea:  Obama — Bush merger.  It makes some more sense than Obama — Hitler.  See where it gets you in terms of reaction, instead of this or whatever.
But.  It’s funny.  Room for some disasters and not others.

Question for anyone in Britain or Germany:  Have you seen these people lately?

Jacques_Cheminade
Jacques Cheminade, the small-time Marshal Pétain who has long headed the LaRouche org in France. He was in charge of the recruitment team that persuaded Jeremiah Duggan to go to the 2003 German conference. The French LaRouchians who accompanied Jeremiah were sent home after his death and told to keep their mouths shut and not even talk about Jeremiah to each other. Under Cheminade’s strict discipline, this has worked fairly well…so far
AND 

.tennenbaumjon
Jonathan Tenenbaum, who Jonathan Tennenbaum was one of two LaRouche representatives that met with Erica and Hugo Duggan shortly after Jeremiah died, when they traveled to Wiesbaden.[…] he was assigned this “job” because, formally, he is Jewish and on occasion he can sound semi-sane and at least pretend to act like a human being. […]  at minimum, he was responsible for dealing with the Duggans and, more to the point, he was probably assigned the role of figuring out what really happened. Then he could help formulate plans/ploys/ways to handle “the problem”. Surely, he served as a conduit of intelligence information–a one-way conduit. Without question he told his bosses, Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, everything that happened during his meetings and conversations with the Duggans.

19 Responses to “Jeremiah Duggan report in the BBC? TO The battle-fields at WIKIPEDIA@@”

  1. Rachel Holmes Says:

    1. Someone should tell Howie G that Webster wrote stupid books when he was in the Labor Committee too, including the excrescence The Unauthorized Biography of George H.W. Bush, co-authored with the ineffable Anton Chaitkin.

    2. On Wikipedia, SlimVirgin is exactly right. There is no “German position” to put forward except the stonewalling position claiming that Jeremiah Duggan committed suicide.

    Now, ask yourselves: How would the police know it was suicide? It’s by no means obvious, when someone is hit by a car (IF Jeremiah was hit by a car) that it was suicide.

    There’s only one place I can see that the police could have gotten their absurd, unproven, and impossible-to-prove line that it was suicide: From the Schiller Institute and EIR, whose office is a few doors down the street from where Jeremiah’s body was found.

    Whose leader Ortrun Cramer just happened to have Jeremiah’s bloodstained passport.

    Who ….

    You get the idea.

  2. chator Says:

    I was at the L.A. office in the late 90s. From about ’97 to 2000, what Thomas Rooney says is accurate. He was one of the two founders of LYM, the other was Amie Acheson, but all the credit went to Phil and Harley because they ran the local. Phil was the actual head of the L.A. office, and Harley was the Regional head. But Amie pushed for campus organizing to get younger recruits when everyone else thought it was a bad idea. And Tom gave the first weekly classes at the L.A. office aimed at recruiting youth met on campuses. That winning combination, campus organizing and cadre classes at the L.A. office was the birth of LYM.

    chator

  3. Rachel Holmes Says:

    Well, Tom Rooney, the creation of the LYM was certainly a bad day’s work.

  4. Justin Says:

    Regarding Thomas Rooney’s issue with wikipedia.
    After reading the LYM wikipedia post, all I can really suggest is one big: Whoop de doo. So, what needs to be done is to strip the sentence on when the thing was launched and replace it with something about starting in the bowels of an LA office with an eye toward a push for campus recruitment and indoctrination. And from that platform, they went on to world wide fame, with a Buso sign extolling Kesha’s nominating victory as part of a worldwide Global Strike in route to their usual rounding error percentage of the vote.

    Vive le WLYM!

    Really, I don’t think it deserves a wikipedia entry. I understand the odd distortions that word counting does with wikipedia — as I’ve discovered, by wikipedia word count, the “Monster Raving Loony Party” is the third major political party in Great Britain.
    http://www.struat.com/election/2010/05/08/the-british-political-party-hierarchy/
    But I think the WLYm can be best tucked into about four sentences in the general “Larouche Movement” page.

    Look! A British semi-Larouchian.
    http://davidaslindsay.blogspot.com/2010/05/following-lone-star.html
    And there is more than a touch of New Labour about him, with his hysterical hatred of Britain and his incessant abuse of the Queen.
    Sure.

    Gad, he surfaces into various Republican blogspots with his message to the Dems.
    http://hurryupharry.org/2010/05/24/is-palin-even-more-un-american/
    Democrats need to reach out to those who would otherwise be attracted to Mitt Romney, the prophet and apostle of socialized medicine, who ran for the Senate from the left of Ted Kennedy. Democrats need to reach out to those who would otherwise be attracted to Mike Huckabee, economically one of the most progressive governors in American history, and who also happens to be against abortion and same-sex “marriage” while in favor of Second Amendment rights. Democrats need to reach out to those who would otherwise be attracted to Sarah Palin, with her admirable history as a Buchananite battler for job protection, for war aversion, for immigration control and for family values against the archenemy of all of them, the global “free” market, and with her record as Governor of Alaska on the basis of publicly administered natural resources held in common ownership. And Democrats need to reach out to those who would otherwise be attracted to Ron Paul and to his opposition to bailouts, to wars, and to the erosion of constitutional checks and balances. I want to play my part in that reaching out.”

    So, where is that candidate? By no means only in Kentucky.
    {skip a post}

    With Paul practically guaranteed to be elected, the challenge to the Democratic Party will be issued in and from the Senate: if you want to win, then you need morally and socially conservative, economically and culturally patriotic foreign policy realists. Otherwise, people will vote for such candidates anyway. But they won’t be economic populists who are Democrats for that reason. They won’t be economic populists at all. And they won’t be Democrats at all, either.

    In that vein, it is almost worth hoping for the election of Kesha Rogers, the Democratic nominee in TX-22. That would force the Democrats to ask themselves how and why anyone who wants to vote to end the bailouts, to restore Glass-Steagall, to bring home the troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, to invest in key infrastructure, and to give expression to certain conservative moral and social views, could not automatically do so simply by voting for a mainstream Democrat, who in Texas would have combined the best of the Populists and the Farmers’ Alliance with the best of the Texas Tories, but instead had to make do with a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche.
    tap tap tap.

    http://www.standard.net/topics/opinion/2010/05/24/show-me-jobs
    As for the fall elections I’m wondering about an unusual young African-American woman in Texas named Kesha Rogers. In a March primary she trounced two Democrat establishment nominees in a run to be the candidate for the House of Representatives. Ms Rogers won by promising to be fiscally conservative and, if elected, she would immediately sponsor a bill of impeachment against President Obama for mismanaging the economy.
    Democratic party leaders in Texas are in a justifiable snit over Kesha Rogers and have solemnly covenanted not to send her a dime of financial support.

    Good response here:
    Kesha Rogers is part of the Larouchite-Lindsay swivel-eyed fruitcake alliance! How is it logical to say, let’s hope a crazy person gets elected as it will mean we’ll have to ask tough questions about why we voted for a crazy person…

    What bloody sense does that make Mr Lindsay?

    …………..

    I am actually curious about David Frum’s comments. It strikes me as a little strange, even with the qualifiers “briefly”, that “many of my friends fell (briefly) victim to Lyndon Larouche’s mad ideology”, as I always take the cult to come in from the margins — even at that time-period. Where was Frum at that time that it could come into good view for him? Maybe I will email him.

  5. chator Says:

    Yeah, and add a mention of Rooney’s name. If you want further accuracy you can add that LaRouche’s claim to having come up with the idea for a youth movement as a political strategy wasn’t accomplished until after Phil and Harley had presented the idea and movement to Lyn as a gift. Lyn basically had no idea what was going on, on the West Coast, he was briefed on it by Phil and Harley. The idea for a youth movement came about as a natural consequence of having amassed a large enough number of youth to justify the creation of one. An official website and the name WWLYM (World-wide LaRouche Youth Movement) was officially coined in the summer of 2000. But by then the youth movement had already been a fact for almost a year.

    chator

  6. Dennis King Says:

    Re David Frum’s statement that “many of my friends fell (briefly) victim to Lyndon Larouche’s mad ideology,” I wonder if he’s referring to David Goldman, for whom the adjective “briefly” means 19 years–of which at least 11 were spent on the National Committee of the NCLC…and then 20 more years of covering up for LaRouche via a stony silence only to reemerge as the apostle of a kind of LaRouchism without LaRouche under the name “Spengler.” Hey, if Frum could believe Chalabi’s stories about weapons of mass production being churned out by Saddam Hussein’s collapsed economy, why not believe Goldman too?

  7. Justin Says:

    I was wondering how long it would take to ban Andrew Sumlin:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Albert_Sumlin

    I feel like I have blundered into a production of Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible.” Once you are accused, there is no defense, including innocence. This is a very strange place. Albert Sumlin (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

    Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Albert_Sumlin”

    I thought it was more like the Dreyfuss Affair, or is a brand new modern version of the Trial of Socrates.

  8. Tom Rooney Says:

    chator, you almost got it right. I pushed for campus organizing before Amie, in a sort of blocked way. There were a few campus deployments as a result, but Amie made it work. I came along for the ride, and gave those classes, as you say. Nothing is simple. The rest of these clowns are too simple.

  9. Tom Rooney Says:

    Phil and Harley were persuaded into leading the nascent movement. I had something to do with that. Phil and Harley may both rememeber that impromptu discussion in the hallway. I’m proud of the fact that I had enough sense to do something enough, as it turned out. That’s all the credit I want.

  10. Rachel Holmes Says:

    Tom, whatever you did, it were better left undone. The LYM is a catastrophe, or would be, if it were on a larger scale.

    As it is, it is pathos and bathos, it steals minds and glazes eyes, and exploits young people in every possible way.

    Its politics is odious and delusional.

    The only difference between Phil and Harley, on the one hand, and the LYM, on the other, is that Phil and Harley are old zombies, and the LYM are young ones.

  11. Justin Says:

    Tom Rooney: That’s all the credit I want.

    Great. I will go ahead and re-christian the thing “Rooney and Acheson Present the Larouche Youth Movement”, or RAPLYM.

  12. Tom Rooney Says:

    Well Rachel, what qualifies you to pass these judgements? Most of the discussion in different places on the internet about the LYM is typically ‘odious and delusional’. This thread is no exception. I know. I was on the inside. You couldn’t get any more inside. As an ex-member, far from the past, I have no outstanding reason to defend LaRouche, the movement, or anyone in the movement, but I will, because all the naysayers, like you, are wasting ill words on half-truths at best.

    In the beginning, as in the end, being a LaRouchie is a choice. People join LaRouche because they want to. Even if it takes persusion, or even pressure, it’s a choice. They join because they are excited about politics and ideas. They leave usually because their ideals are dulled by the pressures of daily organizing.

    It’s easy for some ex-members to look back at their experience, and highlight the negatives. Whenever I read or hear these accounts, I can’t help getting a feeling that they are trying to justify their own failures by blaming someone, or something else. They are just complaining uselessly, because they discovered their inability to change things they set out to change. Trying to create political change is extremely difficult. Those who have the wherewithal to keep trying, are free to do so, and deserve no less common respect than anyone else.

    Then there are those who really have no way of knowing. They were never a member, and have no way of knowing much of anything relevant. Some of them are self-styled experts, because they read the discussions, or they met a LaRouchie, or they heard something from somebody, or whatever. Whatever the case may be, their words are usually just weak opinions.

    Spare me the insults.

  13. Rachel Holmes Says:

    What qualifies me to pass these judgments, Tom Rooney, is my having been a member of the LaRouche org for longer than you’ve been alive (I’m guessing).

    My concern is young people like Jeremiah Duggan–he wound up dead in the midst of a LaRouche Youth “cadre school.”

    The issue is not insults, but the darker side of the LYM–or the darker side of the overall LaRouche org.

    I have no problem with “trying to create political change.” But, having been in the org so long, and known its principals so well, I think I can say with some certainty that “trying to create political change” is NOT what LaRouche is all about.

    You tell me that one couldn’t get more “inside” than you got “inside.” So I take it that means you knew LaRouche well personally for decades? Were privy to all the nonsense that went on in the NEC, in Security, and elsewhere? Are intimately familiar with the legal cases? Recall vividly all the moronic “turns” the org made? All the imbecilic “campaigns”?

    Trust me, you don’t know the half of it, as the saying goes. Well more than half of what happened “on the inside” happened before you ever heard of LaRouche.

    As Donald Rumsfeld used to say, “We don’t know what we don’t know.” It seems to me that applies here: You don’t know what you don’t know.

    Therefore, your defense of LaRouche, his retinue, and his Jugend Bewegung, doesn’t have much clout.

  14. Tom Rooney Says:

    I suppose I should wonder why you, having been in so long, didn’t leave after the first “moronic turn”. You stayed, and now your words are clear enough. I have all the clout required to know the difference between honesty and cynicism. I didn’t join the “darker side” when I was in, and I won’t join it when I’m out. That makes us very different.

  15. Rachel Holmes Says:

    Tom–

    I think a number of things make us very different.

    –Rachel

  16. xlcr and sad Says:

    Rachel he nailed you but good. Why did you stay for so long? Brainwashed?

  17. Rachel Holmes Says:

    xlcr and sad–Sad cuz you’re an X-LCer? Why not jump right in? I understand the water’s fine.

    As to why I stayed so long. If and when you figure out who I am or was, you will figure that out too, poor old thing.

  18. Justin Says:

    I am amused by “xlcr and sad”. Apparently some frequent poster at factnet has gotten under his (or her) skin.

  19. Tom Rooney Says:

    Memories! The New Silk Road is happening!

Leave a Reply