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.

Absurd, ill-informed, ridiculous protests, reminiscent of those protests of films in which the protesters have never actually seen the films they are so incensed about. Yes, Wagner was a virulent anti-Semite. So were a great number of great nineteenth-century artists in music and in other media (Degas for one). If Hitler had found inspiration in Degas’ paintings, would that then mean that we should boycott a Degas exhibit as being propaganda of the Third Reich? The fact of the matter is that, as the critic Paul Robinson rightly argues, we must separate Wagner’s operas from Wagner the man. As Robinson writes, Wagner’s “music dramas yield anti-Semitic readings only when subjected to aggressive interpretation…Put another way, Wagner’s creative genius seems to have protected him from infecting his artistic creations with the hateful views he spouted in his prose works. It is as if they embody only his better self, reflecting a moral sensibility distressingly absent from his writings and his life.”The real question is, what are the Laroche crazies really after in this stunt?

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.

One Response to “Webster”

  1. Justin Says:

    The debate (if you can call it that) on Wagner between Larouchite Hal Goldberg and, joined in the fray I see, Harley Schlanger — and every one else in the LA Times comments section continues, and I see a spot where a Larouchian will feel their views “justified”:

    Wagner’s personal anti-Semitism is disgusting, but it doesn’t stop his operas from being an important part of our cultural legacy. His influence in California is probably most evident in the movies–much of film music proceeds from Wagner, as do epic sagas like “Star Wars.” That is what resulted when modern Americans listened to Wagner–not a resurgence of Nazism.

    From memory: Watch those characters in Star Wars. Do they look human to you? There you go — the British Empire’s grand Bestialization Plot

    In other updates, the Mass Strike continues in the hallways of Costco:
    Then, on the way out, I was accosted again, this time by an insane gentleman with a small stand and a white tent covering (it was raining). On the stand was IMPEACH OBAMA along with a cute little graphic of Hitler saluting a mustachioed Obama. He thrust a clipboard at me and said, “Please help end Obama’s fascist regime!”
    A lot of things went through my mind as possible rejoinders to that. However, realizing the futility of discussion, I glared at him and kept going without saying a word.

    AND, I know Tarpley interviewed her on his internet radio program, but maybe the Larouchies can swallow her up and promote her:

    We Democrats need a genuine nutter on our side… for entertainment squared.
    Posted by: Geopolitics101 | May 26, 2010 1:50 PM |
    Oh, don’t worry! We’ve got Kesha Rogers, a LaRouche “Democrat” who managed to win the primary for TX-22.

    While you might be watching any small portion of the Star Wars series, the most crucial epistemological issue stands out clearly at first glance. At that moment, you have merely to ask yourself: “Do these creatures look human to you?” How could anyone excuse himself from overlooking the significance of that question? — from the org, from 1999

    More Wagner discussion in the comments section here:
    Which came from the link (lost in the shuffle before I posted this), here:
    The Larouche Org’s Historical Perspective is full of shi#.

    This is not to ignore the question of Wagner’s anti-semitism, to be sure. But rants and screeds solve nothing and the Schiller Institute seems to be unwilling to engage in honest back and forth discussion. I approached one of the bull-horners at the 1985 SFO Ring and asked him if they’d be interested in a debate with the Wagner Society and gave him my card. I promised him that we’d engage in a fair debate. I never heard back from him.

    What’s bizarre to me is the the Schiller Institute theoretically espouses peace, love and equality and yet in my experience, they strike me as very fascist in their tactics. They don’t want an honest discussion; they just want to drown out any opinions that aren’t their own. Perhaps they should join forces with the Tea Baggers.

    The women, one of whom identified herself only as Ali, because “of a policy we have with the press,” claim the president is a “Nero-like puppet” backed by the same London-based financier circles who “brought us the Hitler regime and World War II.”

    All part of the final push for Summer Shield’s primary face off on Tuesday.

    The women working at the booth declined comment.
    Comments get odd as always, but…
    While I personally would rather see Obama behind bars, I wonder how these Larouche members think a Democrat majority congress would ever vote to impeach their messiah. Unfortunately, all three branches of government are aligned against the American people, as designed by the Socialist Democrat party. The chance that Obama would receive impeachment from his fellow Dems is slim to none. Over to:
    Some people (Larouche party) need to find a hobby since all they seem to have to do is stand outside the post office with images of Obama with a Hitler mustache asking a president 500 days in to be impeached.

Leave a Reply