Apparently stung by the net effect of sparodic blogs reporting, in combination of mock and irritation, meetings with Larouche card-table deployments, LPAC has stuck this report — a distillation of some scattered comments into something of a rallying call.  It is… funny, in that moribud way all of these things tend to be funny.

Generation that Fought the Nazis: LaRouche Is Right on Obama!
July 1, 2009 (LPAC)—Lyndon LaRouche’s webcast call to arms on fighting Barack Obama’s Nazi policy on medical treatment, profoundly touched the souls of his generation—those who fought in World War II, or lived through it. But many boomers and younger people were protective of Obamamania, and fearful of what their “friends” and peers will think about calling Obama’s plan “Nazi.”
Among the older people, whether it was those who attended the Washington-area meeting where LaRouche spoke, the regional meetings, or watched it on the web, or learned about it in the field, there was a powerful response. At a literature table in the New Jersey region, an older woman was at our literature table, getting briefed on the LPAC fight, and looking at our signs on Obama and Hitler. She looked over the LPAC literature, and exclaimed, “You’re right, his policy is Nazi.” Then she pulled up her shirtsleeve to reveal the numbers tattooed on her arm, put there when she was a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp in Poland at the age of 9.
At the Washington, DC-area event, an Italian-American man from Philadelphia, said, “Lyn has to win. I know, I lived under Mussolini. Lyn is right.” Two men in their 80s had the same response. One, at a field site in Los Angeles said, referring to Obama and the Administration, “I’m 80 years old. They’re out to kill me!” Another World War II veteran, attending the New Jersey office showing of the webcast, said, “I’m in trouble … I’m over 80 … they want to be rid of people like me.” In Chicago, a 79-year-old man, who had retreated into religion from politics, listened by phone to Lyn’s webcast, and later said, “That speech should be on the front page of every newspaper in the country! What he said about the British is absolutely true! In fact, everything he said is true! He’s the smartest man in the world!!”

Hm.  Frankly, they could play the “Current events remind person alive during WW2 of Nazi Germany” game since at least Nixon, probably before.  A note to the family of the elderly persons referenced in this item:  it may be time to take over some of their financial decisions.

Granted, if one cares one probably has read these things, but I draw your attention to the factnet posts of  Hylozoic Hedgehog  under the “Old Mole Files” and the “New Mole Files”.  The “Old Mole Files” plows through the weeds regarding something I have no real idea, and the Larouche takeover of the “CODE” publication, as well placing various actors onto the scene.  “The New Mole Files”:  I have a confession to make here.  I am actually a little underwhelmed by it.  Perhaps this effect will change when I read (after a few posts pile up)  posts regarding “Mop Up”, but my basic reaction is “Tell me something I don’t know.”  Which shouldn’t be my reaction (he’s told me something I didn’t know with the “Old Mole Files”, after all), except I gather part of the purpose here is carrying on an argument against  Dennis King (”quit lying” about “Larouche’s ideological orientation”), such as I’m left with the belief that it promised more than it delivered on that score.

I assume this was the purpose of putting in bold type and adding a paranthetical “emphasis added” to the phrase in Larouche’s stated purpose of finding “Leninist Boomers”.  Of course, a secondary purpose is to put the context of the org as being a forty year history of yanking a small cadre of “Leninist Boomers” around in various fashions, which I guess would argue for the cult orientation over any ideological consideration.

To review how the “left” and “right” strait-jacket is reconciled, here are two quotations from Tim Wohlforth in his memoir The Prophet’s Children:

“In fact it is quite remarkable how the ‘new’ Larouche organizes his followers in a Leninist cadre fashion, drives them with a vision of the historic tasks and the necessity of their actions and successfully reaches layers of society with “transitionl” slogans that appeal to economic needs or old prejudices.”

“The Larouchites began mouthing anti-Semitic phraseology, promoting the nuclear program and arms industry, advocating a Star Wars defense, and baiting gay people.  The old Trotskyite, a member of my own small organization, had emerged as a Fascist!”

I hesitate to say Wohlforth over-stepped his bounds in referring to various mainstream causes of the 1980s into the realm of “fascist”, though the “gay baiting” in particular may have the “matters of degree” on a one dimensional “left / right” spectrum.  The “anti-semitic phraseology” is what remains constant.  Also I wonder what “layers of society” he refers to here — surely the elderly people in the LPAC release and the similar credit fraud victims of the 1980s, and the college aged recruits, and a larger number I guess anyone who’s quoted a single line from Leon Strauss in the past eight years and talked and blamed Hitler on Prescott Bush over the past two decades.

I also go to the response to the Wall Street journal editorial of 1986 chaffing at the reference to “right wing”, with the comment that they’re ignoring that their conspiracy theories stem from a right-wing history.  For the most part — immediately past the issue front which can lean either conservative or liberal — the grand conspiratorialing is at home and is undistinguishable from something available for sale in the back-page of a John Birch Society catalouge.  (Or, further afield, Liberty Lobby’s Spotlight.  And some perenials commence.)  But not entirely?  The one about Western Imperialists’s grab of Africa’s raw materials, subjecting them to third world conditions — a mainstay of the org, put into words at the end of the SNL sketch, serves as an in to various despots  — strikes me as Leftist.  Does it become “Rightist” by mere dent of sticking a Jewish financier and cabal behind it?  (Well, that’s my crudest brush off of Chip Berlet’s “Right Woos Left” piece.)

Here is a fairly typical piece –   A liberal case against Wal Mart –  select paragaphs would not be out of place in an issue of, say for instance — In These Times, but the other paragraphs feature the Larouchian calling card.  A conspiracy brought to you by Synarchists in league with the Imperial Rome model.  It’s the mode of operation adaptable to practically any popular political cause of the past 30 years.  In the case of the Wal-Mart piece, I don’t know if it’s to lure a recruit from a general liberal arena, have the wind at the back of a Larouchie as s/he holds forth on a street corner, or to make it roll onto a like-minded website or two.

Another quotation from Wohlforth brings something to mind on what I regard as the nature of the cult.  I can’t find it immediately — it’s somewhere in this book.  Something to do with “we may never know what turned Larouche against the Left”.  I found it a misguided quotation.
Trotskyites are famous for their intercessine fights and references to every other Trotskyite organization as “Reactionary Deviants”.  Indeed, it’s the only thing they’re famous for.  To look through the Spartacist publications from the 1960s into the 1980s (and it’s been over a year since I’ve done so) was to provide me the one essential context for the org.  The image which comes to mind was a photograph of Tim Wohlforth protesting The War with the sign “Troops Home Now”, and the accompanying admonishment that the Wohlforthites “adopted a purely Nationalist line” whereas the Spartacists proudly fought on behalf of the Viet-Cong.  The other image is a cover of a grubby and dirty mine striker, iconic image I’m pretty sure, and I don’t know my history of the Second or Third International well enough to locate it to Poland or the Ukraine.  Surely the Spartacists hawking these publications on a street corner held much in common with the rough and tumble striker
So Larouche left that venue — imaginary though it may be, called forth the “Fifth International” where he has played that game of historical mission on a larger scale.  Wohlforth is gone; Newton is in!  (Though, oddly enough, Mark Rudd remains in.)  Revolutionary Workers strikes are gone; Benajamin Franklin’s “youth movement” is in!  Such was where the “Leninist Boomers” were yanked about.  [Incidentally, I believe the Fifth International has failed and been utterly corrupted, and will thus be forming the Sixth International.]

As for the Nazis?  Well, we can move further afield from King, who  — cavalier about posting a photograph of the man’s arms out-stretched though he may be (ironically transforming Larouche into an ordinary politician) in his defense titled his book “The New American Fascism”, not “New American Nazism”.  I have no opinion on Plato and his “Golden Souls”, except that Plato’s Republic has served as the rationalization for a number of despots.  I have no opinion on Nazi Space swirls, except to point to Von Braunn’s courtship.  And I’m hard pressed to figure out what else the org’s effect, outside its orbit of spending membership’s lives [Jeremiah Duggan the extreme example], has been besides stirring this conspiratorial items into public discourse.
Across the spectrum.  On the far edge you have European’s “researchers” and “reporters” who insist to him that they know they all read Mein Kampf and sit before portraits of Hitler.  An edge inward and you have this admitted tin-foil hat wearer’s conspiracy theory that the org was financed by fleeing Nazis’ Gold and there we have Dave Emory’s program which sticks him in as part of that “Underground Reich” (though, Emory would also hold forth about Prescott Bush on that score.)

Addendum, 6-27:
I need to note that after a long absense of releasing rather lukewarm appraisals of the situation in Iran, due seemingly to Larouche being out of it and focused on “major speeches” in Europe — a bad sign for the post death of the leader — they’ve finally come out full bore against the British intransigence (the whole-hearted belief of “The Daily Elitist”.
Though, it’s a bit hard to imagine the “Support khamenei” line – or “The British must admit they killed Neda” –becoming a peition-gathering project, ala the current “Nancy Pelosi Sucks Eggs”, I gather the stance is enough to get the org some rumpus into Iranian State television (or round about there), for a full projection back to the cult about being a ”American Statesman” figure — the better for a wikipedia edit.
…………………………………

Hand count.  How many people out there have been waiting to see when and where someone in the blogosphere or the web-o-sphere would take a Robert Dreyfuss article on the current events in Iran, and snip it next to parts of Robert Dreyfuss’s writings on Iran, perhaps from his book, from the 1979 to 1980 period?  (Today’s piece would appear in, for instance, The Nation — 1980’s Hostage to Khoemeni was published by the Lyndon Larouche Organization, as Robert Dreyfuss would have been the Secretary of State had Lyndon Larouche ever become president… no, don’t laugh.  Actually, yes — do laugh.)

(Crickets chirping.)
Okay.  Yes.  I am the only one.

Well, satisfactorily, here is my answer.  Right here.  This is the conspiratorial nattering which slides away inconvenient information, focuses on convenient threads, and seems to hold the American Clandestine government as the only actor that acts out there.  The Nation magazine is posited as a “gate-keeper”, a device to keep the Left in line, evidenced because Katrina vanden Heuvel’s father was International Rescue Committee which was a CIA plot.  Nonetheless, the author of this item apparently found The Nation valuable enough to continue a subscription until 2006, when it published a piece that followed the CIA line on the JFK assassination.

Actually, the Dreyfuss clippings here are from his 2006 book against his 1980 book.  And here’s the purpose of the Larouche organization.:

Surprisingly, though, the story of the CIA and British intelligence’s overthrow of the Shah is also told by Robert Dreyfuss in Hostage to Khomeini, 1980.   Dreyfuss rewrote the history of the Shah’s overthrow in The Devil’s Game, 2005.  In Hostage to Khomeini, Dreyfuss details how and why the CIA and the US military installed the Ayatollah and how Carter was manipulated into setting up the taking of the U.S. embassy — Dreyfuss even quotes the NYT to show how Carter knew that giving sanctuary to the Shah would lead to seizure of the embassy.  But now, as a Nation contributing editor, this time around Dreyfuss wrote, “Never did a revolution catch the United States more by surprise than did the one that swamped Iran in 1978-1979.” p. 214.
 
Why the change?  The obvious and most reasonable conclusion is that Dreyfuss is an intelligence agent or asset.  Dreyfuss’s earlier book was published by New Benjamin Franklin House, a Lyndon LaRouche affiliate.  One of the functions LaRouche served for the USG intelligence community was to advertise obscurely a covert operation that they dearly wished to keep secret, but to wrap it with the noxious LaRouchian ideology and nimbus so that anyone else respectable who revealed it could be smeared and dismissed as touting a crazy LaRouchian idea.

The one good thing that can be said with this to lend it some credence there  is that it is written in the past tense.  A second “say… what did Dreyfuss say round about 1979?” item is here.  (What did he say?  That the polot to bing down the Shah was orchestrated by, in particular British.  This is Larouche, after all.  Which I suppose makes some sort of conspiratorial sense in the way of Khamenei’s recent “British evilest of all” statement — the 1953 coup was encouraged by Churchill, had been rebuked by Truman.)

The topic of Larouche remains a bothersome one.  To have something of such irrelevance and then to peek into the natterings of the involved and their rather skewed perspective, trying at once to see where they are coming from … is a little disorienting.  I refer to the comments, and we can thread this roughly from  jimdeblasi to (as of this moment, and as of the 20th) MR76 at this Seattle PI story.  And it is a rather unremarkable story.  But comment by comment:

The La Rouche organization is an anti gay hate group.  With all due respect to the contours of the California Initiatives of 1986 and 1988, and the uses of the word “faggotry”, that’s a rather narrow classification for the org.
I already mocked Will I Am Tell’s comment in my last post.  He continues with a new comment under a different “question” moniker with such as:
Let me tell you first that I’m not a full out Larouche “supporter”.
Steve?  Is that you?
when I read the comments on this blog, it reminds me of something. I picture an article posted here, lets say it was posted in 1950 in alabama. (I know, no internet then, bear with me!) and it was about a black man who was hit in the streets, causing the white sherrif to arrest the white perpetrater for violating his civil rights. The comments on the blog that follow are “stupid n–ger shouldn’t be walking down that street in broad daylight.” and “damn n–ger was out there to rape a white woman!” and, “Why they chargin him with hate crimes, we all know n–gers ain’t human!”
In other words, those posting on this blog ought to be ashamed of tthemselves and their bahavior. Your attitudes are worse than racism, and you reveal what existential wretches you really are.

We are getting a rather unique perversion of the word “hate crime”.  Or maybe it’s not so unique, and every Cult of Personality deem themselves a necessarily protected class due to perceived historical persecution.

Silverchild, a name I recognize from my years of scanning these things, chimes in with:  Look at the BILE coming out of the minds and mouths of most of the folks commenting above- against LaRouche. It’s all media brainwashing. [...]  As for the jerk who threatened the young LaRouche supporters, he has no right to threaten people or to rip down their signs-if he disagrees, he should create a movement and set up his own table.
Maybe it’s media brainwashing to go back to the article these comments are directed toward and pointing the rather minor nature of the reported threat?
But the Grand Dragon of Delusion comes with the final comment:

I’ve heard that back in the 1970s that Communist Party assaulted LaRouche organizers and that LaRouche responded with a self defense campaign called “Operation Mop Op.” They fought street battles with the Communists until the assaults ended. When LaRouche was arrested, the government sent 300 special ops police. You’d have to be an idiot to pick a fight with these people. No wonder the man threatened from his car and drove off!

So that’s the Larouche sequence of events on that one.  Bizarre for that item, is that it’s popped up in the wikipedia editing attempts.  Coincidentally, I assume.  But, if I may offer an explanation with Oscam’s Razor in hand, the man threatened from his car and drove off because it was an item of flippancy and a gut-level emotional response to the Obama Hitler Mustache and not, in the scheme of his life, a matter of much importance.  See, for instance, this reaction – just important enough to rip off one quick blog post.

Frequent blog poster “whitemale” shares his conversion story:

When Lyndon Larouche gave historical webcast in the month of July 2007, he pronounced at the time the stock market was at 14,000 that: “The Anglo-Dutch Financial Monetary system will die…”,
I nearly became overwhelmed with fright and fear because I never ever heard any forecaster speak with such utter certaincy and conclusiveness and surity. [...]  I thought immediately to myself, “Lyndon Larouche must be a prophet or a majician with majical powers”, but there was more.
I note that he’s not there yet, as evidenced by allowing a few other experts into his purview:
You can call me a ‘tin-foiled’ hat wearer all you want for listening to peoples like Lyndon Larouche, Alex Jones and others but so far, most of everything that they have been warning about for years and years has come true.
As previous posts from other commenters told, people like Jones, Beck, and Paul are mere populists with no ideas.  This man needs to attend one these meetings discussed by this Berlin traveller to get his mind straight on that matter.

AND finally, in genocidal, Malthusian, energy plan news.  Also, in that vein.

And in a completely different vein.  Quite funny.  I guess The Abominable won.

 As you see, Stephen Colbert and the members of the Lyndon Larouche Organization have come to the same comedic routine.  It’s worth comtrasting how the two handled the joke.  The Colbert bit took less than ten seconds, and what you see in this image is the conceit of the mock - O’Reilly asking “Did you put up the Hitler Mustache image?” — meaning even in this parody he recognizes it as an absurd parody.  It’s taken off, and he moves on the Obama Fly-Swatting story.  The LYMers, on the other hand, are taking the joke on the road, and standing on street-corners for hours on end (as oppsoed to a few seconds) with the “Hitler Mustache” placard. 

There is at least one outraged reaction against Colbert’s image – a bit different than the Seattle reaction.  As for the Larouchies, when I saw them standing in front of a Portland mall, they didn’t have the overhanging Larouche image that you see in the image shown at the top of this post.  I suggest that this might clarify a problem for them.  For some not entirely apt reason, there are people running into the Mustached Obama image who will assume this is a neo-nazi organization.  The giant image of Larouche will clarify iit, “Oh.  Okay.  It’s even lamer.  It’s the Larouchies.”

A bit of sympathy, of sorts.  Unlike the Obama Monkey “double standard” conundrum, which is a violation due to the historical nature  of considering blacks as sub-human — though in the famed April of 2008 speech Larouche more than violated the “same insult leveled at Bush” line by explicitly running to the racialist problems of miscegenation — the “same as Hitler” line is just too second nature as mindless invective.  If Carter, Bush I, Gore, and Cheney Can be imposed with a Hitler Mustache or compared to Hitler, why can’t Obama?

I suppose there’s the problem of Hitler’s Master Race conflicting with the message.  The need to arrive at a higher ground in the way of piddling political invective is shown with how this rather innocuous youtube video of Obama’s fly-swat brings out “n”-word practioners in the comments section (which I saw flooding the page 1 yesterday — today, it’s buried a bit deeper) .

Yes, I wonder what former Civil Rights activist Amelia Boynton Robinson , now in her elderly years, bizarre Larouche validator, has to say about such an image.

The good news for the Larouchies, I suppose, is that the Obama’s Care plan’s path through the Senate has hit some set-backs this week.  This has nothing to do with the whole campaign of wandering to street corners and putting Obama Mustached pictures up, but the delusion that it does can safely fill their mind.  Likewise, I can almost imagine Larouche (a big fan of Stephen Colbert, I hear) might just assume that Colbert’s handful of seconds of showing an image of Obama with a mustache is evidence of some influence or other.
Comments from these postings, and a couple “talk radio pundits”, showing wherefor the Larouchies are aligned right now:

whitemale08 (???)  People who are smart and can connect-the-dots, can see on the horizon, a British Empire of Worthless Derivatives and Credit-Default Swaps Neo-Fuedalism and Serfdom posed as Malthusian Parasites and Ticks

Ah.  Finally I run into the new(ish) blog from the leader of the Larouchian Cryonics Movement…  Check it out and let us see what animates him, and his self-professed “movement of one member”.

Pearl harbour was staged?
Hippocratic Oath given Nazi interpretation by Obama’s man.

Hm.  Actually none of this is terribly interesting.  The one I’m wondering about is “Comedy That Actually Works“.  Having my fill of some rather low-brow comedy regarding David Carradine’s death, I’m wanting to set my mind on a higher, more Platonic plane.  Unfortunately, the leader of the Larouchian Cryonics Movement is setting aside his material behind passwords, so I’m stuck with his request to go to the EIR site.  Which, I will admit, is a bastion of comedy.

Though not quite as comedic as the commenters that float into the blogosphere:

wow, pretty accurate description of Larouche’s work! If I were’nt already associated with the movement, I’d ask, “where do I sign up to get involved with these people?” Thank you for spreading the word accurately. My only question is, did you investigate anything that you wrote above? is it all really that absurd to you that it doesn’t merit an investigation? Are you that immersed in popular opinion that you just simply cannot think, or are you afraid that Larouche may be right?

The canard of the “Popular Opinion” — a clever device, I’d say, on how the followers can explain away how nobody much thinks about their master, and those that do and pay him slight enough mind to do the cursory glance (and for the most part a cursory glance is what he deserves) come up with “the standard”.

… Very RoughlyDefined as what ends up dumped onto wikipedia.  And now it’s time to look at the concerted Boiler-room Effort at Wikipedia.  Firstly, the round-up for the keeping of an article for Stanislov Menshikov:

Keep. As long as we continue to pretend this is an encyclopedia, I support greater lenience in applying notability standards for articles about legitimate scholars/thinkers than those conerncing pop culture flashes-in-pans. I find the discussion as to whether the article was crated by a (gasp) banned user to be petty and somewhat surreal.–The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that wikipedia features articles for peoples that are arguably less notable than this Menshikov, and doesn’t have articles for peoples that are arguably more notable than Menshikov, and to a great extent I don’t much care — in the end I barely care about the odd dents that the Larouchians have affected in the Larouche articles, though am fascinated enough to observe and note this process.  But whatever it’s worth, the only reason that article was created was because the Larouche organization wants to use him to push forward the idea that Larouche is a somebody.  It is a curious skewing of wikipedia focuses — kind of similar to how the sweep of articles devoted to topics of concern to Larouche is equivalent to, say, Albert Einstein — in and of itself not too much of a problem, I’d say, except it gives a pretty bad impression.  (See the article devoted to Hegla Zepp… and I’ll get to that one in a second.)

Remind me to go to sign up to wikipedia, and get to the task of putting up the Floyd Paxton article.  Who’s he?  He invented the bread-clip and ran the “Qwik Lox Fastener” company.  That’s as notable as an old Soviet functionary, and has more of an impact on our day to day lives, right?

Is there any doubt that Helga Zepp has roughly zero affect on anything outside the cloistered confines of Das Cult?  Well, never mind, she gets a wikipedia article.  A point for her in the Helga Zepp — Jeffrey Steinberg Splinters of Sucession.  Some new arguments have ensued over her article – the travails of EIR as a source (and EIR will hype up any niggling mention of das Cult  – apparently she addressed the Duma, and apparently that is worth something grand).

Incidentally, the state of EIR looks to be rather poor these days:

The EIR is not shipped to the European organization any more. Apparently no (!) copies reach Europe any more. So the LC in Europe cant mail the EIR to the last subscribers here that still does not use the EIW. Apparently the European LC is making photocopies in black-and-white and are mailing it out instead!

Hm.  Nobody’s missing anything.  EIR is now just a compilation of images of Obama photo-shopped with Hitler’s mustache, anyways.
… Say, doesn’t that fall under the Larouche concern last December that Soros (or somebody like that, and also the British) was orchestrating, some heated rhetoric would be the cover for which this might be done, for the Assassination of Obama — which, I’d think the “Obama’s Nazi Health Care Plan” trope would suffice for this purpose, over in that alter-world.  (See my commentings of nazi  related rhetoric here, or look to this item regarding Nancy Pelosi:

“What is she doing about genocide? Doesn’t she know the Obama administration, her own party, is pushing genocide? She doesn’t have time to deal with that? What is wrong with the bitch? She is not paying attention. She wants to change the subject. She is not talking about reality. She wants to talk about schedules.”

Regretably I don’t have enough patience to pin down comments of how an Obama Assassination would come down — and the strange double-track that would preclude his current talk, but I can take us back to when the gang in the Boiler-room was rhapsodizing about Obama’s assassinating, and speculating that (from the “Get Larouche Conspiracy”) “Molly might do it” and “pin it down on us”.

Heh heh heh.  Right?
Oh, that one answers this question — echoing some thoughts expressed by Revenire – that Erik asks here:

One can wonder why so much time is spend on the morning briefing. While EIR cotains some useful articles, the briefing is a piece of paper that is not memorised, stored, re-read or quoted to the outside world.

I collect from all over, and arrange the pieces of the puzzle as best I can.  One item to be noted here — regarding an article on the overuse of the word “extreme” in political campaigns in the state of Virginia:

In 1996, Mark Warner — then challenging Republican Sen. John Warner — tried to paint the old lion as a wingnut, too. “Mark Warner is testing the risky strategy of trying to portray the senator as an extremist,” a news article reported. During a debate, Mark Warner admitted to having voted for John only because he was the lesser of two evils: “Between you and the LaRouche party, you were the clear choice . . . . [But] I don’t think the senator that I voted for in 1990 would have marched in lockstep with Newt Gingrich over the past year.”

Note that in denigrating his opponent as “extreme” he didn’t even bother with a labeling of the 1990 “greater of two evils” Nancy Spannaus candidacy as “extreme” or “loopy” or what have you.

The current line of Obama following the “Nazi Health Care” plot — I’m having a bit of trouble locating on an ideological line in terms of what passions the campaign is aimed to flow out from.  But maybe I’ll contemplate that one later.  I’m having some trouble locating the existence of the org itself at the moment — maybe they can flutter past and leave some debris to remind me that they do exist in the physical economy somewhere.

Unless the so-called health-care reforms presently proposed by President Obama are prevented, all talk of civil rights were an ugly farce in the tradition of Adolf Hitler’s Tiergarten-4.

Obama = Hitler.  Why, we even have the image of Obama with the mustache to work with!  A pretty awesome turn, albeit one to a spot he was in beforehand.  But who cares what Lyndon Larouche has to say, really?  I’m more interested in reading old Communist Party, USA pamphlets showing what Earl Browder had to say about things!

First of all, the question of literature to the masses.  In the first principle of Party defense that I spoke of — going to the masses — the most important role is played by mass literature.  We have made certain definite improvements in this respect in the last six months.  During this period, we have distributed more pamphlets than in any previous year in our Party’s history.
That is an improvement.  But can we say that this measures up to the possibilities of the situation, especially in the circulation of one-cent and two-cent pamphlets?  I think that in an historical moment in which the enemy is making Coummunism and the Communist Party the central issue in the life of the Country we must admit that with better organization of our work, we can multiply the present distribution of pamphlets, especially cheap pamphlets; for these mass popular pamphlets are precisely the sharpest weapons we have for influencing the masses and through the masses, the actual course of events in the history of our country and of the world.
This emphasis upon literature should not be taken to mean neglect of mass meetings.  Mass meetings become more important than ever, although through mass meetings we can never reach as broad a

But now I’m already a little bored of Earl Browder.  I’m having trouble with this one — was this hawked on street corners in the days of 1940?  Who would be interested in reading Earl Browder’s discussion of internal Communist Party, USA matters?  As opposed to, I suppose, his realignment on that thing which caused many a splinter in the Communist Party — The Finnish Question — which as Orwellian as this be, at least figures into actual world policy matters:

Well, we don’t need to go today into all the details of the gigantic conspiracy, this grandiose effort of the world bourgeoisie to turn its forces to the crushing of the Soviet Union.  Suffice it to say that all of these enormous efforts and these grandiose diabolical schemes come to wreck.  They come to wreck on the Bolshevik vigilance of the Soviet Worker, of their Party, and above all, of their great leader, our Lenin of today, Comrade Stalin.

As Comrade Foster mentioned in opening this meeting, the military news from Finland this morning indicates that the process of the liberation of the Finnish people from their forcibly imposed role of puppets for World Imperialism is well under way.  We can expect that it will not be long now when a free Finland will work out her own destiny in close friendship and collaboration with the Soviet Union.

Memoirs of assorted Communist members of the time tell of their befuddled confusion in accepting this tripe, a gasp of air that was not released until the line switched back to the struggle against Adolf Hitler and Fascism — where FDR was once again a hero.  But that’s neither here nor there.  Let’s ponder what’s now being pumped out of LPAC:

At this moment, the President and a selected cabal of his associates are conducting a series of meetings with such as select members of the U.S. Congress, in the attempt to ram such Hitler-like policies through as U.S. Federal statutes, before the generality of the population could be alerted to the intentional crimes against humanity being presently promoted from relevant circles inside the Obama administration.
Stop that horror while you can! Do not wait, as the German population did.

And to think, once upon a time they were using Obama campaign organizing websites for their own organizational tool.  I suppose those days are over.  AND… Can somebody do me a favor and look through the 200-some comments here and see if a “Laroucheistruth” or a (smirk) “Alexandar Hamilton” pops in for a spell?

Anyway….  It is a bit interesting that the Larouchies, as shown in their continued wikipedia edit attempts, are hanging their hat on supposed reverence found in Russia, attempting to keep in the lede a “Validator” of Stanislav Menshikov.   I suppose you’d want to know that the wikipedia editing confuberation over Stanislav_Menshikov continues apace.  Judging by the voting, it appears that this Stanislav Menshikov article will be kept, meaning not a whole awful lot for me, and only this for the Larouchian editors at wikipedia:

Here’s my two cents: The Heritage Foundation comment seems fairly representative of commentary about LaRouche in the US, while the Menshikov comment seems representative of (especially recent) commentary about LaRouche elsewhere, especially in Russia where his fans seem to have more access to media organs. –Leatherstocking (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

“Huge in Russia”, which for the LYM and Boomer faitful is what they’re going to hang their hat on to make up for not being Huge in the USA — or, I guess, for being hidden by the Dutch — Anglo Elites.  Remind me to go back to the news database, look up the “BBC Monitoring Service” for media of former Soviet countries (including Russia), and check to see if there is any mention of Larouche was not then dutifully re-reported by the LPAC clattering keyboardists.  IE:  That’s about the extent of “influence” in Russia — Menshikov, references in regards to Georgia – and most surreally, that recent LPAC release reporting on Russian Blog Coverage.
At least with Earl Browder, his movement was indeed Huge in Russia — and was indeed politically squashed in the USA. 

Incidentally, as the LYMers adjust to their new line, I need to point out how off this item is:

Avoid Lyndon LaRouche the same way you would avoid a cliche, or the plague. While the rumors that he’s a ‘fascist’ may be false, the rumors that quoting LaRouche will help you score with chicks are definitely not true.

We’ve already established that the Larouchies are an Anti-Sex Cult, so these rumors are null and void, and indeed that blog post will now be used as a Recruitment Tool.

(In other news:  I once upon a time linked to this blog, which was a new blog set up by the leader of the “Larouche Cryonics Movement.”  It appears he’s made it a Private Party.   Go figure.  I don’t know how he’s going to increase the size of his movement that way, but to each their own.)

And from Dennis King’s website:
And this first edition of Dope, Inc. in which the infamous Protocols forgery is described as the authentic minutes of a Paris “Order of Zion” meeting, is today being promoted on the website of the LaRouche Youth Movement, a cadre formation founded circa 2001 that is recruiting aggressively on college campuses throughout the United States with little opposition from Hillel or anyone else.
Hillel I never heard of until I googled just now — okay, it’s a Campus Jewish Group.  But, for what it’s worth, a Socialist Group picketed and pamphletered the recent Connecticut collge professor Norton Mezvinsky sponsored speaking engagement.  I can’t say I’m terribly impressed, but I’m not sure what to be impressed by.

Slightly disappointed to learn, though I don’t quite know why, that the 9/11 Truth wackadoodle film Zeitgeist movie makes use of Lyndon Larouche hisownself.  I don’t even know why that is — maybe I was pegging a hope that the man found himself further on the fringe of the Fringe than this, or that if it were to make use of his org it’d pull in, say, a Jeffrey Steinberg.  But nonetheless, this review tells us he makes an appearance.

What is grating about it is the fact that the movie uses LaRouche as a reliable witness. Google him up, and it’s like turning a rock over: suddenly, cockroaches start squirming all over the place. This individual is anti-semite, covert fascist and, no surprise here, conspiracy theorist. He claims to be the real originator of the SDI (the Strategic Defense Initiative, the anti-missile project under Ronald Reagan dubbed “Star Wars”) - no mention of the real drivers of the project, Lt. Gen. Daniel Graham and the renowned scientist, and father of the hydrogen bomb, Dr. Edward Teller. LaRouche did some years in jail for tax evasion, and then him and his attorney started a campaign saying that his imprisonment was a “conspiracy” by government officials to discredit and destroy LaRouche and “brainwash” the population.

It’s all very surreal, until you learn that he was bullied and isolated in school - well, that explains it, he looks then very much like the mad scientist from Batman, except without superpowers or death rays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_Larouche

That’s someone who the movie presents, keeping a straight face, as a reliable source of information. Sigh.

But for my purposes, what is interesting here is the simple linking to the wikipedia page as a source of information. Despite the best efforts of the concerted Larouche tag team of wiki-editors. The latest wikipedia editing attempt is a push-back from an attempt to take out from the lede the name “Stanislav Menshikov”. A few key lines here:

It might be appropriate to mention that Menshikov has spoken at one or more LaRouche movement events, so is not an impartial commentator. Will Beback talk 20:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I think that the most helpful thing that you could do would be to write a new BLP of Stanislav Menshikov, to replace the one that you just (Ctrl-click)”>deleted as part of your never-ending feud with the LaRouchies. –Leatherstocking (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
If he’s genuinely notable then someone unassociated with the LaRouche movment will write one. I have no feud with “the LaRouchies”, and I’d remind you to assume good faith and avoid baseless charges. Will Beback talk 01:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether Menshikov warrents a wikipedia page, and I have only a marginal and detached belief he shouldn’t be mentioned in a lede. (Wait a few months and we’ll have a different ‘Big Name of the Month’ serving for Larouche’s back-up to suggest either “Big in Russia” or “Respected by Professors in Connecticut“!) But it is notable the reason for the deletion of the Menshikov post.

20:50, 22 May 2009 Will Beback (talk | contribs) deleted “Stanislav Menshikov” ‎ (G5: Creation by a banned user in violation of ban)

Ah, yes. Herschel Kurstofsky. And so the wikipedia game continues. As I discovered previously, a Larouchie theory at work is that to have a wikipedia page is to exist for purposes of a wikipedia reference, to not is to not. Also, (go down to the 6th section), be sure to buttress your points at tangeantal unrelated wikipedia entries they probably could give two whits about, ala Paul Krassner.

In other strange Internet sightings, follow this flow-chart regarding a posting about an Alex Jones video**:

flyinghotwing Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:05 am  i have listened to …
i have listened to larouch and have gone to a meeting at his headquarters in LA and he does sound good…i also like ron paul because he stands for honesty and tells it like it is from within the house, i also like jesse ventura..larouche is a smart economics man……..what do you think about the creature from jekyll island?

LaRoucheisright Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:05 am Yes of course he is … Yes of course he is
The only way to defeat this evil cabal is to join LaRouche ! You got to have a movement with a leader who knows how to win, and what to do.  Go look at LaRouchePACdotcom
listen to some of the youth members videos.
The movement we need produces youngsters like the LaRouche movement. This explanation of who predicted it is totally sophistic. Too complcated an idea to do in five hundred symbols. Listen to LaRouche if you want to understand the difference.

flyinghotwing Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:05 am  is larouche better …
is larouche better than ron paul? why>

flyinghotwing Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:05 am  who created the Fed …
who created the Fed? Jewish and anglo american banking interests…….same people behind the depression(s), the world wars for profit, the empires abroad for natural resources….its black nobility folks from Europe, and the U.S. and some Japanese ( trilateral connections) as well…………..

flyinghotwing Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:05 am  the american …
the american corporation known as the united states (colonies) is part of the anglo american empire, british ruled from London via Rothschild. These Jewish European bankers are indeed in control, but they work with the Vatican asins as well…….so its really not just jews, its a conglomerate of evil conspirators…but give me proof of what you mean by the jewish american establishment…i mean i realize they are prominent with the creation of Israel, as well as banking and media interests

LaRoucheisright Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:05 am  Alex jones never …
Alex jones never talks about the solution. We must have a movement behind Lyndon LaRouche.
Alex Jones, Beck, and all the other populists are lying. This is all lies except the problem. Listen to LaRouche if you want to get out of this. Promote LaRouche, if you want to get out of this crisis with your life.

 … Okay, “Laroucheisright”, but… do you have any comment on that posting about the Jews?
A bit less important, Ron Paul supporters can sometimes pull to the same wave-length, So why no answer to the specific question “Is Larouche better than Ron Paul?”

It appears that he’s a busy blog commenter.  He has comments to make about Putin speaking about Georgia on Japanese television.  See here**.  I think he’s contradicts himself with these two comments:

Yes it is true Soros is as evil little creature as the Oligarchy has working for them. There is maybe no other that does more for the Empire than George Soros. AND

Maybe it is George W. Bush having a little fun.
Divide and conquer ya, the age old method of the British empire to destroy Nation States. Everyone knows Jr. is a cousin of the queen ya? And that his Grandfather Prescott bankrolled Adolph Hitler until he was forced to stop in 1942. If you want to stop fascism join Lyndon LaRouche.

I don’t know. Implicit is the suggestion that maybe the Bushes are as evil as Soros, and thus Soros can’t be “as evil as the Oligarchy has working for them.” Okay, never mind. That’s a stretch. “Laroucheisright” wins this round. But he loses this next round here **:

The only way to defeat this evil cabal is to join LaRouche ! You got to have a movement with a leader who knows how to win, and what to do.
Depends on one’s definition of “winning”, I suppose.

Incidentally, I need to pull back that “Beck” reference that I just pushed past. In order to shrug and nod to this factnet post. Basically, Glen Beck is swerving into the same conspiratorial and paranoid sources that Larouche is pulling back — Beck’s “Obama is unleasing Fascism with a Friendly Face” comes from dusting off what I guess is his new discovery of some the ugly parts of the Progressive Era. It’s not too hard to drive about the veins of partisan and philosophical discontent — whoop de doo — the Larouche org is swerving to the conservative side as opposed to the liberal side. Not quite completely, I guess, as he’ll still stand up against any reforms of Social Security, but good enough to — say, take on Medical Marijuana, and good enough to bring back the “Club for Life” and come out strong against Abortion and Obama’s Notre Dame speech. (And while I’m referencing factnet posts, I see a bit of symetry with this line:

Personally, I think it’s Lyn’s ham-handed response to the series of posts on Dennis King’s website on Abortion in the LaRouche Organization, including the two pieces by “Evil Witch” Kronberg.

AND THIS

What’s the point of calling out Tennenbaum in this way? What hoax or scheme is he talking about? Is this nothing more than rhetoric against those that have left the cult? And a warning to those still in it?

The Tennenbaum item is particularly interesting in light of “Revenire”’s “friendly reminisces” of Tennenbaum (posted photograph), proving something or other to “earnest one”, aka Peter Tennenbaum (he of “New Revelations in Terror” fame). Factnet elicits elliptical responses from the org.

I may or may not post scattered stuff in the coming days in the comments section, but I’ll leave anyone bored enough to chew over this .

(* It should be noted that I do have some degree of respect for Congressman Ron Paul — your mileage may vary and I’ll say that it’s not exactly total–, and am leery of making that point the focus of the title of this blog post.)

** I think these originate from youtube and are computer-copied to these links.

Another one bites the dust. Okay to speak ill of the dead?

During his life Frankhouser had been convicted of an international fraud scheme, allegedly involved in assassination plots against U.S. government leaders, acquitted of a stabbing a rival Klan leader, lost an eye in a bar fight and waged a battle to get his white supremacist show on public access cable television, according to just a few of the dozens of newspaper clippings in the Reading Eagle archive.

The longtime Klansman and former member of the American Nazi Party was convicted in February 1995, following a four-day federal trial in Boston stemming from allegations he advised a white supremacist’s mother to destroy evidence linking her son to the desecration of synagogues in Randolph and Brockton, Mass., as well as alleged assaults on black Brockton residents.[...]
On February 17, 1988, Frankhouser was sentenced to three years in federal prison and fined $50,000 for advising political extremist Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. to obstruct a federal grand jury probe into an alleged fundraising fraud scheme.
During the trial, Forrest Lee Fick of Stony Creek Mills testified that he and Frankhouser were asked by a member of LaRouche’s organization to kill former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger during a flight to Europe.

When asked to comment on the life and his association with Roy Frankhouser, Jr. Lyndon Larouche had this to say:

“This is straight Nazi stuff,” Larouche elaborated. “It’s not a quibble; it’s not an interpretation. This is a direct copy of the philosophy of the Nazis. You cannot duck that issue. This is Nazi stuff.”

While I’m on the subject of recently deceased associates of this cult leader, I bring to attention this weird bit – funny in a disturbingly sick way (as all these things are)– on 1992 vice presidential candidate James Bevel, a career fall from Martin Luther King, Jr to Larouche (at which time he had an “educational program” going on with his children and was committing incest) one of those things you shake your head at:

In 1993/1994 I remember that I sat together with some youngsters from Sweden and Poland. He spoke about sex. The basic idea with what he said to us youngsters, was to say that one had to control once sexlife and sexual instincts in order to become a good political organizer. He said that he used to have sex with cows (!) as a kid, as all other kids had (!), and that almost all young people today (!) have sex in in the same “unscientific” and hedonistic way as he used to have sex with cows (!). “And we did not care if the cow (!) was male or female, as long as there was a hole to stick it in”, I remember he said… Bevel appealed to us young people (I was 24 at the time) to make a revolt against the sexual habits of “today”. Homosexuality, and sex when dating, SEXUAL ATTRACTION, etc, was “unscientific” and a way for the oligarchy (Yes, he spoke about them too!) to control people… Off course, Bevel said that he was “scientific” when he wanted to eradicate lust from sexuality…

“When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule,” as the radical anti-abortionist Neal Horseley once said.

Or, it puts the constant references to “Bestial”. And, in what the cult hopes to consider a big historic expedition, Larouche spoke at Central Connecticut State University and asked the question Larouchies have asked me on this blog — DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAN AND ANIMAL? Luckily the LPAC site bullet-points this for me:

The Difference Between Man and Ape: Fire

As simple as that. He could have condensed the lecture to just that one thought. Also that is why he doesn’t have to dwell on his supposed task of the Middle East situation.

From the moment he was invited to deliver the lecture as part of the Middle East policy series, chaired by the distinguished Middle East scholar Prof. Norton Mezvinsky, LaRouche contemplated how best to use the limited time allotted, to deliver the most thought-provoking message.

As you will read below, LaRouche stepped outside of the rigged game of the Middle East per se, to deliver a message, intended to reverberate in the Obama Administration as it prepares for an urgent round of diplomacy, and within governing institutions around the world.
It was in this spirit that Lyndon LaRouche delivered the following lecture, before an audience of approximately 200 faculty, students, and guests of Central Connecticut State University on the afternoon of May 4, 2009.

There would appear to be some squabble with the numbers in attendance at this lecture hall. Observers at the scene and observers of the youtube clip are claiming about 20 or 30 were in attendance. But never mind, it’s on the Internet, which means that it surely will now achieve a mass audience. Youtube commenters, have it:
laroucheyouth The Larouche videos are way under-viewed. What can we do to increase it? Put a link on your facebooks, myspaces, and wherever you chat online. People need to be educated on the current state of affairs in this world!

The focus is on our website. That is the mass education and organizing center.
jmar10420 Let the sheep hand out their green leaflets. When the bottom falls out, they’ll be flocked! Lyndon LaRouche is the truth!

Hey guys. Your cult sucks. Quit that cult and join another cult, please.
Should I link to the youtube video and help alleviate their problem somewhat? Nah. Unless I did, in which case no big deal.
Incidentally, this is being blamed for part of the small attendance:
Student demonstrators gathered outside of Davidson Hall Monday afternoon to protest political activist and philosopher Lyndon LaRouche.
Mostly members of the Youth for Socialist Action protestors were armed with comic book-style fliers depicting LaRouche as “a small-time Hitler”.
LaRouche spoke as part of the CCSU Middle East lecture series. This particular event, unlike the rest of the series, was funded personally by CCSU professor Norton Mezvinsky.
“I know some sharply negative attacks are being targeted at LaRouche here on campus,” Mezvinsky said. “The material being handed out is, at best, problematic factually, and some of it just downright false.”

I think I know what the flyers were — run into them when rumbling online, though quickly checking Chip Berlet’s website it doesn’t appear to be from that site. I question if that’s a particularly worthwhile battle to wage, on the YSA’s part, and if it is if that’s the best way to demonstrate — but that’s their business and they may do what they must.

Norton Mezvinsky — I’ll have to email him and ask him what he was thinking and whether he found this a satisfactory lecture furthering free inquiry (questions rather narrowly construed to those mattes). You can email him too!
…………………………………………

Final Goldman items:Good as far as it goes, here and here — just so long as they know the man is lying quite a bit. And this guy observed the whole Michael Bloomberg drumbeating. Our old leader of the Larouche Cryonics Movement, Phil Ossifur, provides an inadequate response to his Omniscent Master.

;">If you read more of this little satirical piece than I did, you’ll find him referenced for the sake of putting him in the Democratic Party.

And this guy observed the whole Michael Bloomberg drumbeating. Our old leader of the Larouche Cryonics Movement, Phil Ossifur, provides an inadequate response to his Omniscent Master.

Why do they go after Nancy Pelosi (second to last comment) when Charles Schumer makes a more obvious target, placed aside Soros? (But I should really stop and not be handing them any ideas here.)

tap tap tap tap.
Get one matter out of the way pretty quickly: David Goldman lied in his “Confession” column about his time in the Larouche organization. He halved his time there. I am reminded of a problem I briefly had in reading a different succesful ex-member who, in his initial article in April of 2007 and then subsequent series of myspace pages (I’m not hiding who I’m referring to, but I have no interest in drawing him into anything or tapping him on the shoulders, which writing a name of the Internet is the equivalent of doing — I refer to NB, of course) — and it became clear to me that he had roughly compartmentalized lines of Independence for dates, though I don’t think the public record showed him as correct. I notice that one of the variations of the sock-puppet “Herschel Kurstofsky” expresed my same “issue” at the wikipedia entry on him, though I always took the “official” “line” on NB as expressed from “unofficial” comments left on the Internet — variations of what we see expressed about Goldman seen here:

I guess he was not allowed to screw the girls in the organization any more that must be why he left.

Ah, yes. Stay classy, Anonymous Larouche Organization Commenter. (In NB’s case, the innuendo was altered to his sexual orientation.) There is a pattern here, such that I begin to wonder if the real story of this organization is that it shouldn’t be understood in terms of any political matters whatsoever and that it’s actually an anti-sex cult. The Larouchies keep saying that the only reason people leave is because they weren’t allowed to have sex in the org, which strikes me as a good reason to leave.

IF I were a wise man I would not make a single comment on Goldman myself, and would throw up various of the more intelligent comments, conflicting though they are, and move along quietly, never dwelling on David Goldman again. But I’m nothing if not a fool, willing to say a bit more than I have any right to say.

There are a few reasons it would be relevant to point out a Larouchian past. Two do not apply here. He’s not “connected” to the org (cough cough, Dreyfuss, cough cough) and he’s not pulling a similar confidence game (Tarpley). In the case of Spengler/ Goldman, it would appear, what I’ve thought of as the “David Horowitz Effect” sparked some interest.:
(GO down to Mark In Houston) When I hear David Horowitz and people like him talk about how far left they were back in the day and how that helped push them to be so far right now, my general response is “So you were a freak then and you are a freak now. Big deal.”

It’s not a perfect fit here, and subjective enough that most anyone with a mere ideological difference of opinion can justify tossing that past up.
It’s there that I think much of this analysis is a bit unfair, skip to 6th paragraph: “of the collective madness” — shades of LaRouche’s rant against the “68ers. — and, also a pretty common trope in conservative politics, and that kind of “new recruit” who decides that their own “New Left” was an adolescent “collective madness”.

A bit closer to an explanation for an affect of “this matter” is seen posted here:

But I have to admit I was dismayed to read of the Larouche connection, which makes me wonder if Goldman is still not subject in some degree to the theory-of-everything fallacy. As interesting as I have found the many essays inspired by Rosenzweig, I have sometimes thought that they explain a little too much, not unlike the experience of talking to a LaRouchian.

Up to whomever to determine, I suppose. Back to Goldman in explaining himself, and a key point: In a caricature of the reductio ad Hitlerum, everything he didn’t like pointed to the Nazis. The economist Milton Friedman, whose students had advised the Pinochet regime in Chile, must be a fascist because LaRouche didn’t like his economics, and I coauthored a book with LaRouche in 1978 with that silly allegation.

As though wanting to provide a ready-made example for the curious, LPAC released this news article as Goldman’s article bumped around a small piece of the blogosphere!

President Obama Is Being Brainwashed by Nazi Doctors
President Barack Obama’s recent interview in the New York Times magazine of May 3, demonstrates without a doubt that he is being brainwashed by his crew of behavioral economists, led by Larry Summers, who are peddling Nazi economics against the old and the sick. [...] This is nothing but Nazi economics. EIR will continue to look for any different between these Orszag-Obama policies and those of Adolf Hitler, but so far, there is no difference.

Anyway, The references to the Larouche as a “gnostic cult” (oooo… the gnostics… oooo), while easily made next to referring to it as “Maoist” in nature, seems to be framed right for this sort of traditionalist religious — the phrase “Up From Secularism” suggestive of, for the sake of Larouche, the old line about open-mindedness allowing for shoving any old crap into your head. That case made further here.

Well, not exactly. I know no Straussians — I really don’t, and this blogger does know that “Straussians” (such as they are) as well the Larouche organization believes Larouche was responsible for planting the common view of Strauss in our political discourse, doesn’t he?
But tweak the phrases a little and you’d get to the religious. Jesus Christ, and for that I suggest skip to “III” at this entry.

It is to laugh. But it is around this theme that I have my biggest problem with this essay, and suggest how weirdly manipulative it is. The line that most floored me, and I don’t know if David Goldman is sincerely pulling stuff out of his arsh for his own sake, or cynically pulling stuff out his arsh to wave at his audience to move past this issue… A comment at beliefnet post expresses this here:

Pentimento May 7, 2009 4:12 PM
Goldman’s explanation of the proportionally high numbers of Jews in classical music is just as bizarre as any LaRouche formulation IMO. He suggests that the reason for these high numbers is that secular Jews are afraid to engage with God, and so play music in order to evoke feelings of the divine. Hmm, all right. Then where does that leave devout Jewish musicians, like the opera singers Jan Peerce and Richard Tucker? What about Jewish composers? What about Jewish converts to Christianity, of whom there historically have been many in both performance and composition? What about non-Jewish classical musicians? Do they, too, turn to music because they fear the encounter with God? I dunno. It seems to me that someone ought to be editing the editor.

I would think the reason there’s a “proportionally high numbers of Jews in classical music” is the same reason there’s a proportionally high number of Jews in any intelletual or artistic endevor. By which I refer to the initial seed money propagated by the Rothschilds which built the arena of Foundations that perpetuate Jewish World Domination.

By the way, I will give Goldman one thing. He solves a wikipedia problem, if it’s of enough concern to rise to the level of “problem” and if anyone were interested in “solving” it.  In the comments section for Larouche’s Views, “Will Beback” states the obvious manichean nature, and Leatherstocking (or a different name for a sock-puppet of the organization — I’d have to look it up) calls for a citation for such a claim.  I was going to get around to posting this item, and end by asking “Would the next person making a brief reference to Larouche please help us out by placing “Manichean” next to the usual assortment of adjectives (fringe and so forth… also, quite increasingly and incorrectly “dead”)?  Well, here we go:

In LaRouche’s Manichean view of the world, a conspiracy had suppressed the truth in the service of evil oligarchs. Starting with Aristotle, it continued through to the nominalists, the British empiricists, and that supposed pinnacle of modern evil, Bertrand Russell. The Venetian Inquisition, the British Empire, the Hapsburg family, the Rockefellers, and the Trilateral Commission all figured variously in this grand conspiracy against LaRouche’s supposed intellectual antecedents. Jewish banking families kept popping up in LaRouche’s accounts of the evil forces.

Overall, to post a different part of a comment I already posted, it’s about like this:

I’m not seeing how this is a courageous piece, however. It seems to me that it was a necessary piece, in that Goldman had been outed as a former LaRouchie and needed to explain that portion of his life for credibility reasons, and the piece otherwise reads like many Boomer ex-radical biography pieces.

With convenient omissions.

One more item linking to “Spengler” on how one can stretch this article to make any policy point they desire, go here. And a very brief celebratory dance of sorts from an “outer”.
………………………………………

Hey, Revenire! HBPA is Sweeping the nation!

AND… a basic rule … whenever a poster at Wonkette posts regarding Ron Paul, someone will see fit to throw in a reference to Lyndon Larouche.

Two wikipedia articles I don’t think are quite fair, or proper.  The American Mercury and HL Mencken.  The date at which you can posit the American Mercury as firmly, and respectably ”conservative” in terms of political character would have to date back into the 1930s, and there is no date at which it tripped over the deep end — into a sort of John Birch Society Cold War hysteria  with attendant conspiratorial traps  (example, from a 1956 issue:  “Discussion Groups:  A Leftist Trap” — Adult education programs, promoted by the UN and sponsored by tax-exempt foundations, are being used to further the Communist ends.”), and then even further into the heart of Willa Carto’s Liberty Lobby.  Perhaps you can stick a fork at it, as a matter of symbolism, when a young William Buckley bailed on the magazine and founded the National Review, the better to have a leading conservative magazine not featuring the articles of one G Lincoln Rockwell.  I have to wonder what this writer for the American Conservative magazine wants when re-capturing “the Old Right”, and citing an American Mercury article attacking the Nuremberg Trials, placed next to an uber-patriotic piece by Rockwell.  (Perhaps a few articles over to opposition in the creation of Israel?)

The section on the (elitist, curmudgeonly, invective-spewing contrarian) Mencken’s anti-semitism is an odd focus.  But it is, in exaggerating this trait, the basis for The final phase of the American Mercury’s tie to the legacy of Mencken’s founding — never mind the truth of the ”POV” statement found here.

There is a long conspiratorial series by a Paul Stevens (I don’t expect anyone to know anything about him) in the American Mercury which grabs my attention, in pieces.  “Money Made Mysterious”.  It was written off the heels, and in the same vein, as an article for the July 1956 issue entitled ”Bankers’ Blueprint for Ruin”, in part:

But the most spectacular instance of a nation which was prepared for Communism from within by disloyal businessmen and bankers was Tsarist Russia.  The story of the role of the European money powers and the business sharpers in the delivery of Russia to the Bolsheviks has never been adequately told.  It stands as a nightmarish example to the unwary.”
The softening up of Tsarist Russia was preceded by an underhanded struggle of Western European bankers to fasten their talons upon the Russian economy.  Whatever the faults of the Tsarist regime, it must be said to its credit that it firmly repulsed the Amsterdam — Frankfort — Paris — London — Vienna ring of international bankers and family dynasts.  It was the check which monarchist Russia administered to the Rothschilds and their yes-men which swung the whole camarilla, with its immediate control over Western European opinion, into open sympathy with the Russian revolutionaries.

Always with the Rothschilds.  The article goes on to lay out the International Bankers’ Conspiracy, and I don’t have the patience to craft a flow chart.

Paul Stevens had a “Money Made Mysterious” piece which was composed entirely of excerpts from speeches by “Jacob Thorkelson”.  The wikipedia article doesn’t do him justice, but I guess it would be up to researchers to flesh out this wiki stub.  Thorkelson was the Silver Shirter’s favorite Congressman.  Ironically and incidentally, he was replaced in office by Jeanette Rankin, the first woman in Congress when she was initially elected for a term in 1916 — elected out of office with her “no” vote to a declaration of War–, and in this second go around the only “no” vote for a declaration of War after Pearl Harbor… a more tolerable pacifist, I’d say, as opposed to the condensed Thorkelson speeches:

The Internationalist alone is responsible for the chaotic state in which we find the world, for wherever he is you will find dissension, hatreds, unemployment, poverty, and despair. [...]
The Internationalist is, as I have already said, an insiduous destroyer, who, like a parasite which undermines the health of man, saps the vitality of nations in which he is allowed the freedom to operate.  He uses the public wealth to entrench himself at the expense of industrious and patriotic citizens.
[...]  The Internationalists, however, have finally come to the conclusion that they cannot create the world government except by destroying every sovereign government in the world, and it is with that purpose in mind that unseen forces are now at work in the United States to destroy our government.  In 1913, they were successful in destroying the Soverign government of the state when representation was abolished in the Senate of the United States.  They no doubt hope to destroy the sovereign government of the United States by suspension of the Congress, either by war or because of some critical upheaval.

Just to clarify Torkelson’s position about who is the “Internationalist”, As a point of consideration, a May 3, 1939 article in The New York Times, relating to the “Brown Scare” which wrapped itself into a “Red Scare” before the Dies Committee (House UnAmericans Activities Committee):
“Moseley Proposes Use of the Army to Drive Out Reds
Tells Dies Committee Menace Could Be Handled in Five Minutes from White House”

Major General George Von Horn Moseley, retired, spent five turbulent hours before the Dies Committee today, alternately insisting that a Jewish - led Communist revolution was about to overwhelm the country and protesting that he harbored no anti-Semitic prejudices.  With an oratorical flourish he asserted that “the Jew is an Internationalist first” and “a patriot at home second.”

The General’s entry into the Committee room was impressive.  He stepped through the door, with a military stride, acoompanied by a retinue of attorneys, augmented by one member of the House, Representative Thorkelson of Montana, whom the current issue of Liberation, organ of William Dudley Pelley’s Silver Shirts, calls a “new statesman reaching high above this miasma of skullduggery.”

And, for curiosity’s sake, a June 2 article “Moseley Depicts a World of Jewry“:

General Moseley, who apparently lives under constant dread of assassination, started to drink from a glass of water which had been put at his place, as is the custom, when he jokingly asked if the water was all right.  An aide, taking him seriously, whisked the water away and brought a fresh supply in a new paper cup from the cooler in the corner of the caucus room.

What’s my point?  On a more or less weekly basis I throw up what amounts to the debris left over on the web regarding Lyndon Larouche, and there’s enough fairly interesting material that I might have done so.  I could have done that, but I thought I’d step back and put something in context, mainly with regards to a comment from factnet that’s always bugged me:  a demand for King to quit lying and speak the truth that Larouche’s “anti-semitism” heralds from “[King's] Leftwing Stalinist Obediance” and not this nazi-friendly ”Fascism.”
Actually I’m also somewhat annoyed by cries that Larouche created some “unique” line of (nonetheless bad) thought here.  Yes and No, with a slant toward the “no”.

Say, isn’t the two week Uber-Fundraising about over?  How’s it working?  (Second box here would, I guess, suggest an answer.  See also final link where accolytes to noted late night radio talk show guest Ed Dames compete stubbornly with accolytes of Lyndon Larouche to argue that their guy was right regarding the Swine Flu Pandemic and its attendent destruction of humanity… is that fund-raisable?)

I’m having some trouble with this one, the Daily Briefing for March 16.  My question is: What is “the LPAC Way”?

Because: If we continue with the present policy of practice this organization will go out of existence in two weeks. Therefore, there will be no deviation as a matter of policy or practice from what I’m about to say. And the $120,000-$125,000 is key. Don’t say you have to achieve something else first. That’s what you have to achieve {first}. Otherwise, you’re not going to solve the problem. Anybody who thinks you can solve the problem in another way is an idiot and needs some kind of care.

Look: Our influence is not based on people doing heel and toe in the street. Our exposure in the street in some cases, is relevant. But that’s not the way we raise money. We raise money with the LPAC way. Now, what’s the LPAC way: If you want to raise money, you don’t talk to a member of the Senate or a member of the House of Representatives. That’s a stupid move. We have people who talk to these people, and we call them trained toads—that is , the people who talk to these guys, who call these Senators and Members of Congress toads. Because they can’t swim any more, since they crawled out of the swamp. They can only run around rhhuhh! rhhuhh!

It’s a strange admission.  Apparently observed as much on the streets as in the conference table at Leesburg.  Observe:

Item #1:  Far be it from me to advocate pouring a lot of money into it, I’m just suggesting they use a permenant marker and get somebody with good handwriting to letter it.
Item #2, and I’ll link to a Tea-Party friendly forum that linked to this Seattle Times article, to take note of the follow-up plug to “Obama Deception” — notable because, of course, Tarpley, and there’s a certain irony in a pooh-pooh of Larouche next to an embrace of Tarpley: 
Liz Monta, 69, of Ballard, a retired bartender who said she was upset with bank bailouts, “nationalizing health care and Obama’s socialist agenda,” did take one of the 3-by-3-foot signs the LaRouche supporters were handing out.
But she folded the bottom part that had LaRouche’s name, so she was only waving a sign that said, “End the bailout. Dump Pelosi.”
Finally, something the Larouche Organization is good for.  Eventually your political enemy will align with their political enemy, see here.  They’ll produce a bunch of pictures of unflattering photographs of that individual for your own use.  If only the Larouche Organization could figure out a way to monetize that, they might have something going here, and have a different way of “making money the LPAC Way”.

Just as well the deployments at the “Tea-parties” are down-played.  Observe:

The April 15th Tea Party anti-tax actions were not a “mass movement”—they were an orchestrated operation of George Soros and his Twitter operations backed up by Sir Rupert Murdoch’s Fox media empire. Forget the so-called organizers like Newt Gingrich, Fox News fascist Sean Hannity, and Congressional has-been, Dick Armey. They are just frontmen—the real organizers were the cyber-zombies of Twitter, Facebook and the like. [...]
This whole thing is being orchestrated—that’s what’s important. What you have is the control of so-called popular opinion, which is a bunch of zombies! They’re like a bunch of zombies, like 14th century zombies, marching en masse. Don’t treat it as credible: this is not mass protest. This is not spontaneous protest. You’ve got zombies out there, who will move at the hint from that fascist drug pusher, George Soros.”
“And a lot of this stuff which is called mass protest, is Soros’s zombies—which come in many varieties, because he’s paying for them. Many of them are drugged. They’re out there doing mass protests, not because they know what they’re talking about, but because they are just being told to go out and shake up the Establishment.”
“They have to be compared to the lunatics known in the 14th century New Dark Age, known as the Flagellants. Call these guys the New Flagellants.”

The “Tea-Baggers” were … 14th Century Zombies.  Yes, taking rim shots at the words of Lyndon Larouche is easy sport, though noted is that “Howie G” didn’t get the memo.  I suppose if I say that I nod in agreement with Gary Trudeau’s thoughts It’ll be like an imaginary conversation taking place between him and James Galbraith.  Beyond this, I will echo the thoughts of one Tony Papert, from that briefing:
TONY: Don’t discuss what? I didn’t understand what you were just saying a second ago.
Though, in Tony’s case, the answer can be found with a few simple words spoken:
What we’ve been doing, it STINKS!

Looking through this, does this mean we have a two week bunker-session manning the phones followed by a season where the Larouchies will be taken off of “cardtable Service”, providing a tad less amusement to the public, and put to work sticking videos on their website?  And how is the website going to be “monetized”, anyway?

But the key thing is: Think about what the mission is. Think about what this business is, on method of operation: We’re doing mass organizing in the way I’ve described. Not massive, saying we need 50,000 people; you don’t need 50,000 people. You wouldn’t get anything done with 50,000 people that you couldn’t get done with 500 people. Really get done, in net effect. With 50,000, they’d trip over each other’s feet.
What you do, is you use the vehicle we have: We have an effective website operation in terms of the way it’s designed. It merely has to come up a little bit more in terms of performance, and it {has to be supported!} so it can do the job. We have to have more people on it, doing the work. And we have to produce more product, which means, some of this product is going t be one month, three weeks, two weeks, and so forth, to produce as it comes along. Some stuff is ready to go. So but you have to have a net effect of more than three a day. [...]
But we have to produce the stories, and we have to do it in the audio/video form. The audio/video form is the type that gets across. And the other thing will work: because if they accept you on the audio/video lead, then they’ll accept your written report. Because it’s information, especially short.
So that’s what we do—and we go like hell with that. And we get the impact immediately, because we need, in the next two weeks, we need to get the cash up! And this is the only way we’re going to do it. And we’re going to go full tilt! No apologies, no guessing games, no college tries. Burn down the universities, we don’t want any more college tries. We want results, not college tries. A college try is a guy struggling with a condom. [explosive laughter]

The “Obama Deception” was the number one video on yahoo, beating out “1932″ by a country mile, I’m thinking.  Supposedly the next two week’s of phone harranging is going to produce more web material ala “1932″.  (New up-take of new material apparently coming up quickly.  The money is being raised for more of this quality, I guess.  I see they’ve found the great “Hydrogen Monoxide Kid“, but after cribbing that gag it’s all downhill.  I guess this means this is one of the kicks they’re on , and it along with “Goldman Sucks” don’t fall into the category of bad issues… which, strictly speaking I don’t see what’s wrong — have to throw a wide net in order to get money out of, say this guy’s Hamiltonian Crusade.)

Actually, the real story of “Raising Money the LPAC Way” is shown in the scrippings for savings.  This “to all points” memo shows health care for the central org being dropped.    Which apparently is leading to a Run on final Health Care Check-ups.  The tradition of “raising money through scrippings” is long running, as seen in this memorial to the John Morris.

I don’t know what he and Gary were driving such a long distance at that hour for. I don’t know whether they were coming from a long deployment (standing at a small table selling subscriptions and literature, collecting names and phone numbers to call later), or driving back from an event. But I do know why they ran out of gas. They ran out because there wasn’t enough in the tank, and there wasn’t enough in the tank because there was never much gas in the tanks of LaRouche cars when I was in the group, when the stuff was well under $2 a gallon. I can only imagine that the problem was only more pronounced last summer when gas was $4 a gallon in many parts of the country. Gas tanks were never filled because cash from deployments was a precious commodity. It was always better to bring cash back to the office than spend it all to fill up a tank. Usually, there was only enough gas in our cars to last a day. At the end of a long day of selling literature on the streets, we’d put a few gallons in, at most. Enough for tomorrow.
The cars were never in very good condition. Though these cars were used every day for driving over long distances (sometimes for 50 miles or more each way) they were rarely maintained. I remember a car or two in Los Angeles that didn’t even have a working gas gauge. We always had a can of gas in the trunk of the car. If the driver of the car ran out of gas, he’d have to pull over and re-fill out of the can. I’ve heard that it was a common problem elsewhere in the country as well. Given that John and Gary were trying to refill their tank on the side of a highway, I think there’s they may have had a car in this condition.

 I gather that comments like the one found here are wrong, and can be checked against experiences such as that one:
As to what is motives are, or his credibility, I can be sure that you can never really know, any more than you know what goes on by those in power every day. what you can be sure of, is that a significant portion of those in power, in the U.S., in outher nations, and throughout history, have done, and continue to do, really, really bad things to keep things in their favor.

  For instance, something that’s popped up in my mind regarding “Howie G”’s sex obsession at  ”European”’s blog.  The line about leaving the cult because it doesn’t provide sex seemed to derive from European’s comments on the proposed Canadian Constitution and its homosexuality ban.  Which is about what harm the org did in their two California Initiatives, as seen by this commenter.
I remember what the LaRouchies were doing 20 years ago. May your leadership be reincarnated as garden slugs for adding to my friends’ stress levels during the darkest years of the HIV pandemic.

Well… anyways…