I. Elections

I think I can defend this Virginia politico, or be charitable about her.  This is the “asking for support of” “speak to everybody in the public” long list of anyone and everyone.  If Larouchies were not trailing everyone else on the list, then there may be a problem.

Still, amusing to see the this:  Asked about Youngkin’s reaction to Sears’ mention of LaRouche, Wolking said, “We don’t speak for her.”

At any rate, the politico is no Allen West — who I guess Texas Democrats are loading up on him next standing with Kesha Rogers for a possible Republican primary upset.  (And speaking of whom — What is up with that Rogers backdrop?) 

Senate candidate Diane Sare finds the one police chief who correlates violent crime rates with marijuana use — and What is the state of Mark Crispin Miller these days anyway?  Next we see her speaking with Atoms for Peace — because it is 1950s all over again!  And, interesting ally in Republican gubernatorial contender (will he crack 2 percent in the primary?) Derrick Gibson — thus far only gets the warning sire of his praise for Proud Boys.  

II.  Does Helga’s China Posture have any American Constituency?

This particular praise of China’s aesthetics misses a mark — amusing as it is to shove favored American Presidents in on it all .  No, Nothing wrong with their state media at all.

As Helga shills for China, dumping any research and speculation on Covid’s origins with China on American anti-intellectualism, (irony of ironies in dropping to Richard Hofstadter, who gets cited occasionally on “the paranoid style of American Politics” to explain Larouche’s appeal), it does strike me to attempt to delineate different “apologists” or sympathizers of one type or other for different authoritarian regimes.  Leftists have long had some qualifiers for any criticism of Cuba’s Castro or Venezuela’s Chavez.  Through the past decade and a half I have noted the rightist apologia on Russia’s Putin — round about some editorials by your Pat Buchanans — maybe inching into the foreign policy posture of President Trump — favoring the increased role of the Russian Orthodox Church as a bulwark against perceived decadence — and, you know, Pussy Riot are boorish buffoons whose performative trangressive snubbing of traditionalist moors get oh so tiresome.  There was also a darkly amusing insight from Putin at the time of those increased protests against him — that “we need to create a new small political party for educated urban elites” in his managed electoral “democracy” system — has its unsettling implications in pondering our political history.   On China, there had been a smattering of favorable coverage coming out of the likes of neo liberals such as Thomas Friedman (in editorials mocked by the libertarians at Reason) in suggesting the applicability of some technocratic approaches to American government.  All good and well, but where Team Larouche had some maneuvering room for finding a constituency welcoming Russia’s government model, there is not much you can find there for their salute to Xi — and where it has been is a pretty elitist affair.

The Larouchies take off against Malthus and side with — well, this is just Trashing them. … Or we can move on ,  into satire.

III.  Question 29 — forcing opinions.  One of those all encompassing polls of things — question 29 is — Larouche.  And here we gauge the pulse of a select Twitter following.

Not weird enough for me and too weird for mainstream politics. A bad place to be.

socialist dude ran for president cool or whatevs i’m gonna fall asleep i wish this list had more interesting topics like pop culture i’m gonna become an anti intellectual yawnnnn

anyone who hates the brits that much can’t be that bad

he was the original nick land.

barely know anything about LaRouche but he seems like he sucks big time

Cool guy, I like his defense of Platonism & opposition to British crypto-imperial power, but a spy and not to be fully trusted

I’ve never really done a deep dive on LaRouche. He seems to have the charms and pitfalls of an autodidact

I would have fought side by side or back to back with Mr. LaRouche in his holy crusade against the Aristotelian horde. Rest in power, sir.

I have no stance on either of those. Larouche was an fbi informant and racist whose head of security was a Grand dragon of the klan.

larouche is maybe one of the funnier people in american politics because he has all the political viewpoints. every single one. at the same time

Fascism that serves these days one good purpose: you can tell a fake leftist is quickly googling anything they can in the middle of an argument when they whip out an article from a LaRouche site as a citation.

LaRouche is a local so mostly I just remember as a kid people with LaRouche bumper stickers on their rusted out Subarus handing out pamphlets. More Marxist stuff. Already been over that.

Lyndan LaRouche is a sleuth detective in an agatha christie rip off novel. he is kinda gruff and a lone wolf but dw he has a heart of gold

larouche was a psyop to discredit all of the perfectly sensible conspiracy theories that place Q—— E———— at the center of it all.

CIA spook, but nobody does conspiracies better than the LaRouchies. When they ran cover for the coronascam op, I was a little surprised, but this is a sign that the western left is being rolled up into the regime, and of course LaRouche was always an op.

I don’t know who this guy is but the contents section of his Wikipedia page is great

Respect for running the first Patreon grift

Probably an intelligence asset

greatest crank of all time

bad

holy shit that dude is fucked up.

IV.  Daniel Burke Tweets 

Daniel Burke promotes a Schiller Institute celebration of Edgar Allen Poe. Last minute chance to join the Schiller Institute NYC Chorus event in honor of Edgar Allan Poe: “CELEBRATE THE LIFE OF EDGAR POE: AMERICA’S SOCRATES”. Never heard of Poe as so described, I have to go ahead and google the term. It appears Big Tech is suppressing it, favoring long time Larouche nemesis Noam Chomsky as “America’s Socrates”, as too Stephen Colbert.  We do get the Schiller Event listing on page two, but no literary scholar appears to have taken to the term.

Surprising revelation — a Nemesis of video game protaganists everywhere.

Daniel Burke sees someone he’s tweeted amicably with engage in fun and frivolous pursuits — decides to SIC ‘ EM!!!  Games are liberal. Host musikabends, like Schiller’s circle did, instead. Creative mentation, not simulation. RCam walks on unscathed.

Asking the bold question — can we kill Satan?  The answer … No.  But the Larouchies try anyway –   As the true nature of the universe is creative, Prometheus has every power to succeed, and banish Zeus forever. That victory depends upon a subjective commitment by sovereign human individuals to fulfill the potential of mankind. Allow Zeus’s continued lies, and we perish.  And with campaign rhetoric like that, you can see how they manage the percentages.  Then again, we do get surprising possibilities at the entanglement of larouche, Satanism, and industrial rock.  (‘Seth’ certainly a typo for ‘Set’.)

V.  RCam and Daniel Burke debate drug policy.

RCam:  Dude Weed Bros are the working class of america

Dude Weed Bro “It’s all bullshit man the whole thing’s rigged. Capitalism is evil. We just need to Love Each Other, Man.” This guy is my guy– this guy shall win in the end inshallah

Daniel Burke:  But he can’t do geometry, so how can he be a member of a republic?

Hey — the best student in my high school geometry class was a pothead!

RCam:  These are the only people who perk up when you say “Sacred Geometry” bro

Daniel Burke:  That’s just a meme, though. Can they double the square?  (speaking of stoner geometry) 

Something kinda sad in this statement — Yes, it’s one of the most fun things to do, especially in the street.

I don’t mean these guys aren’t recruitable. I mean we need them to understand that drugs are a weapon of the empire, and if they do so, and stop smoking, their minds will become more free.

You can’t knock the “recruitment” angle, as from my understanding the Larouche youth recruits over the year do not really even come out of political causes — primarily — as from a cultural disillusionmemt in the dorm rooms. Though, this tends more toward the clean with some disdain over student potheads than recovering stoners, the latter may still figure.

RCam:  Mushrooms & Marijuana & Alcohol & Nicotine are not Heroin & Ketamine & LSD & Cocaine etc.

Jack Webb: Marijuana is the flame, heroin is the fuse, lsd is the bomb..

Daniel Burke: Would you agree with me that the intended federal legalization of weed by Chuck Schumer is designed to increase overall drug consumption, stupefying the population and endangering their health?

No.

Huh.  You now, Kanye West may just be receptive.  I expect he will get tweet bombed any week now.

Larouche was right about England and math

VI.  More Intimate Venues

Noting the presence of Ray McGovern at a Larouche conference, and I wonder… When was the last time this guy was on Democracy Now?

March 12, 2014.

A long time gone.  I can’t help think there is a connection between him not being on Democracy Now and him attending Schiller Institute confabs — even if I do not know its precise meaning.  Representative of some combination of Democracy Now “selling out” to a leftwing support gatekeeper role of the two party system, or of McGovern chasing downward into the further fringes.  Depending on your attitude.  (See here).

I sense the kind of floating sales attempt moving to Scott Ritter who, whatever you think of him, provides a thoughtful praise on the complicated legacy of Thomas Jefferson. Others chime in with reasonable points, and Ritter responds accordingly. Then Mike Dzagi uselessly plops in Larouchian crap on the matter, which everyone ignores. Ritter orbits nearby, and the tractor beams are lodged for future occasions.

On to this gray area of things — this “influencer” — is he kidding — or kidding on the square?

Agree?  9/11 “truth” was an effective vehicle for the far right to win over gullible leftists. Historical revisionism.

VII.  How Australia’s Larouche Movement Claimed Credit for…

Enter Australian Post:  The turgid and convoluted outpourings of the LaRouchite movement and its Australian cult followers are difficult to comprehend and, indeed, generally not worth the effort. They are  based on bizarre conspiracy theories that include febrile obsessions with, amongst others, the British Royal family (including claims Queen Elizabeth II is a drug trafficker and her late husband Prince Philip used the World Wildlife Fund to commit terrorism and genocide) and bankers. […] 

Witnessing the admiration and sympathy Holgate garnered among post office licensees, as well as others in the community who felt she had been badly treated, the ACP recast her as a proponent of its public bank policy. It claimed credit for what it called the “revelation…that Christine Holgate had considered turning Australia Post into a public bank, which Scott Morrison’s superiors in the private banks would have fought ‘tooth and nail’.”

According to the ACP, the story that “Four Corners” missed was “that Christine Holgate was a threat to the banks, by virtue of her interest in turning Australia Post into a public bank, which would break the monopoly of the Big Four.”

There is no evidence for any of this. On the contrary, Holgate’s successful banking deal, recently extended by a decade, “gives the [private] banks a broader reach into regional communities,” according to the Australian Financial Review’s James Eyers. […]

Thus, the LaRouchites have yet again made a performance of inventing for themselves an important role on the national stage. But, since the late 1980s, when it (as the CEC) came under the influence of the LaRouche movement, it has never had a candidate elected to any parliament in Australia, although it has made hundreds of attempts.

Yet despite the lack of parliamentary representation it has dramatically outperformed all Australia’s small but electorally more successful parties such as the Katter’s Australian Party and the Jacqui Lambie Network in one respect –  fundraising. If its coffers are anything to go by, its charade must be working.

VIII. Memories

A story of a near-miss. Years back (in 2008), when I 1st discovered YouTube, I was super into anti‐gov conspiracy theories (Alex Jones/InfoWars, Loose Change & 9/11Truth Movement, Zeitgeist, etc). I spent 100s of hours obsessively consuming those kinda vids — tho, 2 be clear, I was never… a true believer. For me it was more of a fascination, & just found it all kinda intriguing. And some of it seemed like it *could* have SOME legitimacy, or have morsels of truth wrapped up in it — while other stuff was undeniably bonkers (it [‘blew my mind’ emoticon] that some ppl are so detached… frm logic/reason/reality that they actually BELIEVE it). But mostly it seemed like conspiracy theories in the anti-gov genre were either grifts or mis/disinfo based on elements of truth which bad (or self‐serving) actors had spun in2 sensational stories & nefarious plots — … exploiting ppls cynism, fears, & the public’s knowledge of wrongdoing our gov really has engaged in, in order 2 sow discord or in service of an alterior agenda. [Winking emoticon]. But I digress. So, during that time I stumbled on this vid made/published by LaRouchePAC… [1932] And, while it has a kinda cheesylow‐budget production value, [faceslap emoticon] I’d be lying if I said it didnt resonate w/ me. And I may well have become a true believer in the conspiracy theory it lays out too — if I hadnt had the presence of mind 2 look up LaRouche 2 see what he was about… Then, after learning about him, & how he promoted low-key fascistic & antisemitic views, I rewatched that vid again (4 like the 17th time [faceslap emoticon]) & was able 2 connect the dots, read between the lines, & see the veiled fascism & anti‐semitism in the narrative its espousing. So yeah… can totally see how some ppl could buy in 2 LaRouche’s movement, become brainwashed, & adopt views/beliefs that are fascist & antisemitic, w/o even really realizing it. (If that makes sense.) The fascist propaganda thats masked in a Leftist facade is particularly insidious.

(notable accusation) One of my high school friends became a LaRouchie. He let slip that he did coke with one of its leaders. So much for their “drugs are a British conspiracy” theory.

Know math, stopping suddenly, turning to the Larouchies, “so you say… you hate England and math? tell me more.”

Yes, I’ve heard of the LaRouchies…we covered them in a course taught by @alexandraistein. Would love to speak with an ex-LaRouchie if anyone is interested… also, are there kids who grew up within it? Can you have a second generation LaRouchie?

That’s one idea. So, in college LaRouche cultist tried to recruit me with a pamphlet “Children of Satan: The Beast Man II” (Dick Cheney is the beast man). I’ve always gotten a kick out of it, but, since learning more about Jewish Satan the opposer angel, I now refer to my cat lovingly as CoSTBM2.

Never making this mistake again: The LaRouche people had a petition about that. I signed it, then they called after the election saying that they had gotten something done with it and it would probably happen soon

As a non-hockey guy, I view your obsession with Sun Belt hockey like I used to view the Lyndon LaRouche supporter who would stand outside the Ukrop’s store where I worked in HS. Except I must admit that your obsession pays off in success.

Hey — Byron’s “It’s the anti-insurrectionists who are the real insurrectionists” brings me back to those Saturday mornings of yore when a Lyndon Larouche supporter would set up a little table to scream nonsense.

Questions: say ur at the I around he school dance, vibing to the music (tuned to 432hz) and someone calls you a Aristitolean pawn of the satanic british imperialists in front of ur crush. Wyd?

… An English friend from university days (early 80s) outwitted Larouche fundraisers who approached him in a US airport by explaining, “Oh – I don’t have any money. I’m British.” They immediately understood and nodded sympathetically. Amazing any vestige of LL’s influence remains.

. . . People who give away free stuff can set limits that are legally enforceable. My college newspaper was free, but when the campus LaRouchies started snatching every copy because we published an article painting them in a bad light, that was still considered theft. (that assumes the Parody view were a “campus club”, which I doubt.)

Recall — I remember one time when they came by my boss’ office and their leave-behind paper was an cartoon of Felix Rohatyn raping a donkey, which represented the Democratic Party.

(Review of “Sexual Impotence of Puerto Rican Socialist Party”) — lol jfc this is def about a girl.. my good homies father was actually the US editor of Claridad around this time i wonder if he bagged larouche’s chick lol […] What was with that guy? I went to one of their meetings or some shit when I didn’t know anything and it felt kinda cultist? Man it was probably like over 10 years ago and I went to the meeting and was asking like what the fuck do you guys even believe and never got a straight answer. (Speaking of neo- Malthusian ism!)

IX. Historical Purview

A call for kooky political manifestos. Australia’s movement gets a vote.

the persons one meets in a far ranging left to right poliltical journey) I’m not sure how I learned of Loren Golder, but it might have been on Aftermath. Goldner had a spotty past; this much I’d heard. He’d been involved with the former Marxist but later conspiracist Lyndon LaRouche. Goldner’s discipleship under LaRouche had ended with the latter ironically accusing him of being a CIA agent.

The Queen wears a crown! Corona means crown! OMG!!! It’s been right in front of us the whole time. Opium wars -> Wuhan -> …, etc., etc. Quick, someone dig up Lyndon Larouche!

Elected by whom and to what? MAIL FRAUD is punishable by Prison. Linden LaRouche went to prison on a technicality for Mail Fraud even tho his mail was shut off by the Feds AND HE WAS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL in his 80s serving his elected term from behind bars.

Translated: Do you remember when they fucked larouche in the talego and his wife helga convinced Pavarotti and domingo that the solution to achieve world peace was to lower the pitch of tuning the orchestras a micona and presented the proposal to the Italian parliament? Good times. Tb convinced Reagan to go ahead with the Star Wars that they would already get the lasers but the tuning of the orchestras seems more top. The wording can be confusing, Pavarotti and Domingo were not involved in the known laser weapons.

Translated — For a rational and peaceful society, let’s cancel quantum physics. Response in English: OK Lyndon LaRouche

I may as well note he has a larouche article on his substack page it breaks no ground so to summarize:, Lyndon LaRouche: The Windsor Mafia has infiltrated every level of government and controls almost every aspect of society through their various Aristotelian-Synarchist organs. Also Lyndon LaRouche: Here’re the intelligence reports on every leftist org we could identify Mr. FBI It’s incredible how a guy so redpilled on international drug trafficking and deep politics is also such a dedicated snitch but that’s LaRouche for you, always a bag chaser first and foremost

Hm… No. Lyndon Larouche candidates pulled this in IL during the 1980s. A LaRouche candidate ran as a Democrat for Lt Governor and didn’t reveal their true affiliations until after they won the primary, forcing the Democratic nominee for governor to distance himself from them. They lost. Like it or not, Team Larouche ran as members of the Democratic Party and ran as Larouchiesin 1986 Illinois. It was up front, no subterfuge. See too the obvious problem with this one — MAIL FRAUD is punishable by Prison. Linden LaRouche went to prison on a technicality for Mail Fraud even tho his mail was shut off by the Feds AND HE WAS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL in his 80s serving his elected term from behind bars. Not an elected official. Must have something lost in translation.

Bertrand Russell’s popular culture — If I were George Lucas I’d give every imperial character a British accent and have the rebels constantly extol the virtues of Lyndon LaRouche

Maybe the cec’s manifesto for list of kook manifestos?. And… How do you vote in a 3rd 4th place 1984 Presidential contest?. Tough choice, eh?

X. Touring

a friend saw LaRouchies outside a supermarket shilling for TFG. i can’t even. LaRouche is dead but the grift/cult lives on.

The swastika = Larouche tour is back!

what fuckery is this

It was some people from the Lyndon Larouche foundation/movement/asylum.

Ugh it had been years since I last wasted any brain cells on LaRouche cultists and damn you for ending that blissful streak

I thought they’d moved pretty far under their rocks too, then there they are on Main Street on a Friday afternoon talking about green energy genocide.

Well these are horrible people.

IDK near major NYC subway stop, my have been larouche nuts, didn’t engage lest I punch someone

And LPAC representing in a Sarasota, Florida garage!!!

XI. Current Events

On this Oregonian piece — The big problem with the ‘Microsoft and Bill Gates are microchipping us’ line is that it is rather antiquated technology — here in the world where Anyone motivated enough to track where I am typing right now can do so, with a modicum of tech savvy. It is not hard to appreciate the anxieties that give rise to this conspiracy theory — but its frame of references belongs to 1980.

In this light, I do scratch my head with Bob Wesser — What’s the point of the disingenuous gratuitous attack on Lyndon LaRouche? The LaRouche Organization has been at the forefront warning about the dangers of COVID infection worldwide and advocating vaccination, masks, and the establishment of a global health infrastructure. Uh… Huh? (That is lpac, and I guess Wesser sides with lorg, but — any separation on this issue?)

Is this conjecture off of that “Putin has a Trump pee tape” memo? Looks like Roger Stone, the guy who, with Harley Schlanger of the Lyndon LaRouche organization, probably helped Putin “hack” our election, is gonna lose his condo.

more I wish they’d ask the Lyndon LaRouche organization’s Harley Schlanger why, after returning from Moscow, he urgently wanted to meet with Roger Stone, with whom he did meet in April of 2016, according to Watergate attorney Doug Caddy, who contacted former colleague Stone for him.

Mike Lindell’s place in American politics.

Forecasting from political trendlines. We’re about 10 years out from the chapocells and red scare girls going all in on some kind of LaRouche ish fascist. Americans have been trying to elect a populist leaning fascist since like Huey Long. That becomes way more explicitly about race in the civil rights years (Wallace and co) but then LaRouche brought us back to esoteric American fascism and I think we’re just about ready to try it. Trump was like, the attempt to do this, but it turned out he was less interested in fascist stuff and more interested in having a good time. The environment is there nonetheless

XII. The tactics and schismatic ideology of Black Hammer garners multiple Larouche allusions — one knows enough to I.d. the labor caucuses. Toss in a reference to time cube.

I. Y’know. Skipping through the sometimes sympathetic sometimes maddening conjectures I take out of this … A surreal feature article on cartoonist Ben Garrison… and of all the lines he throws out I stare at this one:
Garrison to this day believes that Biden, a “demented imposter,” rigged the election against Trump, just as he is convinced that Bill Kristol and his band of neoconservatives robbed Ron Paul of the 2008 GOP nomination.
Kristol and et al “robbed” Ron Paul of the nomination in much the same way Ben Garrison “robbed” Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio of the 2016 nomination — they published a bunch of material arguing their guy over the other guy –, and from there I suppose if we follow the terms of service over to the definition on how Biden “rigged” the election that washes out to “campaigned against”. I need a different example of comparison for any real nefarious conspiracy theory.

II. I can’t say I followed all of Alan Dershowitz’s moves over the past four years and make sense of what Trump defense was justifiable and what not, but in seeing this bravo from crooksandliars on his covid line to Fox News, we see how hard it is to remain consistent (even if the consistency is the ” always must get coverage in any major court case”) in polarized political climate, just you will be accused of this there.

III. Rich Lowry comes to terms with the low hum voltage of President Joseph Biden, at best exploring the political pitfalls and opportunities of such a posture, at worst suffering the new version of “Joe Biden Derangement Syndrome” in calling out a “Goddamned it, where are the inflammatory tweets?”. But into the comments we get this…. Nonsense masquerading as historical studies.

Along with the other idiotic things Illegitimate Joe has done in the last six months, he has solidified his place among:
Benjamin Harrison
Chester A. Arthur
John Tyler
Millard Fillmore
William Henry Harrison (he of the 30 day term)
Warren G. Harding
Franklin Pierce
Andrew Johnson
James Buchanan
James K. Polk
Martin Van Buren
Rutherford B. Hayes, and
James A. Garfield,
As the dumbest Presidents in our history — who are long since forgotten and never remembered by the American citizenry.

Basically he just dumped the post Jackson pre Lincoln and post Lincoln 19th century presidents, and tossed Harding into the mix. But meanwhile, the word “dumb” elides about the batch. Garfield may just have been our smartest President, or at least he had one of the highest iqs. Polk accomplished quite a deal in his single term. Van Buren was a savvy political hack de excellence, and no one’s idea of a dummy. And sure, Harding was probably a moron — the rest I have no good assessment on that score. So what am I supposed to make of this non historically grounded insult? Probably about the same as the kind of comment we always keep seeing:
And we are supposed to believe this guy got over 82 million votes.
There is a name for this logical fallacy , but I would have to look it up. “How could Nixon have won 49 states when no one I know in Berkley voted for him?” — though, from what I understand the person who made that comment was well aware that they were expressing their political isolation.

Another “presidential ranking” thing to parse out, this one dips at opinions of the public at large.

Given the cross currents of cultural and historical fighting, this is where I would be curious to see a trendline of the same question asked through the past fifty years — and more. Some things will remain eternal — Chester Arthur (personal favorite of mine along with John Quincy Adams) will sustain at the top of the “Never heard of him”. But here we get a surprising net positive amongst Democrats for Woodrow Wilson — never mind students at his Princeton University had been busy toppling his statues. Still more than a slide. The question is whether in the post 9/11 period when the Bush Administration was harking to Wilson I an principles, would he have been higher in Republican polling? Does Nixon get a “started the EPA!” Bump from the Democrats with a collapse from “no longer have need to support him” dump from Republicans to converge with the “nonideolical screw him” line from Independents?

It might be a small hopeful sign in view of the presentism bias — noting Obama and Biden to the Democrats’ list at 1- 2, that Trump slides down to fourth on the Republicans’ list — still behind Reagan. Curious that historical luminaries Lincoln and Washington stay at their top — apparently Democrats need to assert their current Presidents or maybe Republicans need to assert a “1776 Project”.

I note the presentism bias is reasonable with a good rational basis, as in actual time and with an actual binary choice the meaning of approval for current presidents has a different meaning than, say, assessing the legacies of Truman — Eisenhower or Hoover — Roosevelt, or whatever. Though I would be curious on how Carter and Bush I ride in public esteem over the years — Bush may get a bi and tri partisan convergence — Carter is a curious figure who is harder to peg on negatives and positives.

Next up — dipping into the “no opinion” /”who?”s to see what the lists suggest on partisan views on the obscurities — if a small sliver of historical footnote have infiltrated liberal or conservative consciousness to up one or another.

If the 3rd and 4th place candidates were your only choices, who would you pick?

As a whole, they show that third party voting tends to act as a dodge — because when face to face with a decision on actualities, I will have to side easily with the damnable major party candidate.

The early Prohibition candidates may bear some looking into, as the politics are not aligned as they are in current day “conservative” versus “liberal” — the women pushing Prohibition entwining their stance with suffrage, for instance. And so an election like 1880 bears looking into — if at first I am thinking “why, the populist, of course” — I have to step back and appreciate that Weaver’s rhetoric was taking on terroristically segregationist and anti-Semitic overtones.

1912 may provide the hardest decision of two palatable candidates. The 1928 and 1932 elections between “near beer” socialism and Communism — pre- Popular Front at that! — is amusing enough (Go Norman Thomas!). — I guess a better choice in least having a Socialist as against 1948 and 1952’s “Red Soviet funded ” third candidate versus Segregationist. (I will go ahead and throw the vote to Wallace — and see how Europe configures itself.)

What do you do with 1964? I gather one is shifting about trying to find meaningful differences. The next two come back to that Segregationist versus Communist jazz. (Socialist Labor fighting it out with Socialist Workers for fourth place, each getting its turn — so call them a draw.)

But… Alright… 1976 onward goes… Libertarians now the closest to a constant with the different factions asserting control at different times (and edged out of the running in the 1996 – 2000 interval) — with big name independents their sparring partners at the top end (McCarthy, Anderson, Perot) mixed with a couple cult candidates in 1984 and 1988 — and in the closing slope Nader and/or Greens as their sparring matches.

McCarthy, Anderson, Bergland, Paul, Perot, flip a coin, Nader, Nader, Nader, Johnson, Johnson, Hawkins.

Got a problem with that?

1872: Charles O’Conor (Straight-Out Democratic) vs. James Black (Prohibition)
1876: Peter Cooper (Greenback) vs. Green Smith (Prohibition)
1880: James Weaver (Greenback) vs. Neal Dow (Prohibition)
1884: John St. John (Prohibition) vs. Benjamin Butler (Greenback)
1888: Clinton Fisk (Prohibition) vs. Alson Streeter (Union Labor)
1892: James Weaver (Populist) vs. John Bidwell (Prohibition)
1896: John Palmer (National Democratic) vs. Joshua Levering (Prohibition)
1900: John Woolley (Prohibition) vs. Eugene Debs (Socialist)
1904: Eugene Debs (Socialist) vs. Silas Swallow (Prohibition)
1908: Eugene Debs (Socialist) vs. Eugene Chafin (Prohibition)
1912: William Howard Taft (Republican) vs. Eugene Debs (Socialist)
1916: Allan Benson (Socialist) vs. James Hanly (Prohibition)
1920: Eugene Debs (Socialist) vs. Parley Christiansen (Farmer-Labor)
1924: Robert La Follette (Progressive) vs. Herman Faris (Prohibition)
1928: Norman Thomas (Socialist) vs. William Foster (Communist)
1932: Norman Thomas (Socialist) vs. William Foster (Communist)
1936: William Lemke (Union) vs. Norman Thomas (Socialist)
1940: Norman Thomas (Socialist) vs. Roger Babson (Prohibition)
1944: Norman Thomas (Socialist) vs. Claude Watson (Prohibition)
1948: Strom Thurmond (States’ Rights) vs. Henry Wallace (Progressive)
1952: Vincent Hallinan (Progressive) vs. Stuart Hamblen (Prohibition)
1956: T. Coleman Andrews (States’ Rights) vs. Eric Hass (Socialist Labor)
1960: Harry F. Byrd (States’ Rights) vs. Eric Hass (Socialist Labor)
1964: Eric Hass (Socialist Labor) vs. Clifton DeBerry (Socialist Workers)
1968: George Wallace (American Independent) vs. Henning Blomen (Socialist Labor)
1972: John Schmitz (American Independent) vs. Linda Jenness (Socialist Workers)
1976: Eugene McCarthy (Independent) vs. Roger MacBride (Libertarian)
1980: John B. Anderson (Independent) vs. Ed Clark (Libertarian)
1984: David Bergland (Libertarian) vs. Lyndon LaRouche (Independent)
1988: Ron Paul (Libertarian) vs. Lenora Fulani (New Alliance)
1992: Ross Perot (Independent) vs. Andre Marrou (Libertarian)
1996: Ross Perot (Reform) vs. Ralph Nader (Green)
2000: Ralph Nader (Green) vs. Pat Buchanan (Reform)
2004: Ralph Nader (Independent) vs. Michael Badnarik (Libertarian)
2008: Ralph Nader (Independent) vs. Bob Barr (Libertarian)
2012: Gary Johnson (Libertarian) vs. Jill Stein (Green)
2016: Gary Johnson (Libertarian) vs. Jill Stein (Green)
2020: Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) vs. Howie Hawkins (Green)

What fresh piece of stupidity is this?

What fresh hell is this?

We get the basic gist that Biden is not a seller to click on — Trump has the benefit of getting in both “sides” of banner ads .

I missed the 30 minute time limit to chime in on athletes kneeling at the National Anthem — and, hm… are the NFL players now going to kneel during “Lift Every Voice and Sing”? No, strike that — it is an elliptical opinion and I can no longer voice an opinion on the matter. And not being a registered Democrat, I can not be one of those 50,000 which — once crossed and signature on this petition — will get Obama on the Supreme Court and —

Wouldn’t that appointment look really weird for President Biden? (No, wait. Biden is apparently not required, if I read that banner right — though he could be one of the 50,000 Democrats to sign and get it done.)

Kevin Drum’s analysis has its agreeable understandable points — so, where was President Clinton stand rhetorically on immigration, and what issue stances did it take to make a true “ally” on sexual minority politics back then versus now? — all of which has to be taken in on grasping electoral shifts and our tightly split electorate —

But it is where the immediate first response goes “Hey! Forgot about the tea party”. As though that is a font of all culture warring. The responders here fail to do anything but brush past Drum’s points on electoral politics — not stepping in to acknowledge that, surely there are electoral ramifications when the terms of ” allyship” get so quickly re-defined that the cultural ramifications of increased transitioning populace aren’t immediately settled…

But, then, the basic premise of “doneness” is along the lines of getting so “on the right side of history” as to obliterate the moral fudgings in “not being on the right side of history” from the cultural perspective of twenty years in the future by, dam edit, we are there NOW! — and so shuttering the Overton Window right… There.

And Nnevermind the real immediate response for Drums premise may be to note the proliferation of bad actors who seek to “overthrow the government” following the example laid out by the man to whom they throw themselves as the front guard.

As it is where John Bolton says Trump not disciplined enough to do a coup — and John Bolton should know from coups.

I admit here that my first quick reading had the 1-6ers saying they were out to “overthrow the government” as to “stopping the steal” — which I took to mean an admission of their anti-spam idea fix goals, as opposed to their not being there “stealing” — which I assume is a perception of themselves as offset by their perception of post Floyd riots.

The culture war fought here rings differently, even as it gets shoved in with that full litany of state legislatures marking lines on where transgender athletes compete, drawing up history curricula without getting stuck in an “America sucks derby”, and where New York City votes in a mayor running on dealing with crime against that “defund the police”. (But hey! Buffalo voted in a Socialist!)

(Sigh). I had a bunch of deluded 1-6 sympathizer or equivalence seeker comments from the comments section of the American Conservative page, but peculiarities chewed it away and forced me to rewrite the rest. Maybe I can find em yet.

A wackadoodle infowars video on Britney Spears, which — wackadoodle it be, does explicate perhaps a kernel of truth or understandable analysis in overarching conspiracy theory jaggings. At root this comes out of that sense that something was at work in bringing a sexualized teenager to a sexualized fame, and out from a young age from the biggest corporation there is — Disney. Some hazy pin point on “Patriarchy” or some entity in “MK Ultra” — the they steer our kids wrong, sacrifice a Britney Spears to an altar.

I can never quite parse “support” / “approval” / “agreement” with the premises for “qanon”, beyond the always large number who come in not knowing of what it is, just as I could never quite parse support / approval / whatever on “9/11 Truth” which always came down to needing clarification on what “Bush Knew” was supposed to mean, and/or “are the government hiding things?”. When Epstein was convicted, some figure of note — don’t recall who — said we would all be depressed in learning about peoples culpable. In the end all we have from the conspiratorial dot connectors ate any photos of their disliked peoples when in the company of Epstein, because more official sources had no great follow through on this premise. So you forgive a couple points for people responding to such polls who have been seeing scattered news stories on Pedophilia in high places and centers of power with limited justice. You would like to think the next part of the equation in the past qanon pollsters — “Trump leading charge” — would get this forgivable percentage rubbed away, but who knows?

A funny thing about Britney Spears… where I see her conservatorship battle in headlines but haven’t bothered to read on. From a limited understanding of the story — and not knowing what abuses may have come in the past decade — I can’t help think that, sure — she deserves ownership of her life and the millions belong to her. But I sense a rewriting or dropping of history from some headlines.

Taking a vantage point from when things went wrong for Ms. Spears, easy pop psychology taking this period in as not necessarily an inevitable (“looks like Aguilera won”) but a possible outcome of her bubbled in choreographed fame — her tabloid train-wreck period coming out of a destructive attraction to the flame — “Hey! Look at me!”

The conservatorship to her father came after that breakdown of pantyless flashing, shaved heads, and various stoned public scampering which I barely recall. And after this court decision, Britney got better — seemingly a result of tabloids dropping coverage of her chaos, which gave her the space to get better, and for her corporate backers to designate her for the next moneymaking post Lolita-act part of her career. Perhaps the tabloid (by extension “society is to blame”) coverage did not require her dad gaining control — but it did come at the same time period.

The matter that is irking me here — as “We all owe Britney Spears an apology” passes by (or maybe it’s mk-ultra?) is seeing a headline where Paris Hilton weighs in on behalf of “hashtag Free Britney”. Hilton, who I grudgingly offer has always been a savvy operator and in control of her own image and act (buffered as it all has been by a life of privilege)– meaning she lands as culpable as anyone in that ” society” that “owes her an apology” — more culpable in fact, facilitating Spears’s crash when Spears had no mental control over her image and act. The term is “enabler” — the sober one flashing her pantylessness and walking away from it carefree where it would leave Spears tarnished. I find myself blinking and rubbing my eyes in wonder — nay, none of this celebrity tabloid fodder has meaning to our lives, but if we are going to go ahead and follow it — do we have to have such short memories on it?