Clicking around, I see that Alex Jones had posted up 5 minutes of Larouche, using the words “friendly friends” and then carries off onto the tangeant of Death Camps, and how everyone is preparing to kill.  Within the week.  Never mind the predicted Inflation — everything has a kernal of truth somewhere, I suppose.

Amazingly, Alex Jones has disappointed me here.  I thought he had standards — rather odd standards, but standards nonetheless.  I always thought he stopped at around Webster Tarpley — mouthing much the same thing, I suppose.

It is time for an update on the wikipedia article on Jeremiah Duggan.  I have already expressed a measure of skeptism about it puttering forward any legal action, but nonetheless this conference is a significant development that needs to be added to this article.  Reading over the wikipedia article, I ponder what the objections from a Larouchian might be, aside from its very existence.  I’m sure they’re pleased with the German ruling, but the most damning item in the whole thing for Larouche and company is this.:

In November 2006, LaRouche issued a statement saying the allegations were a hoax stemming from a campaign orchestrated by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President of the United States, and Cheney’s wife.^[20][19] In March 2007, he said the campaign was led by the “British Fabian friends of Dick Cheney and Al Gore,” and was aimed at discrediting him over his opposition to the Iraq war and his criticism of the man-made global warming hypothesis.^[21]

A strange pick for the most damning item here, particularly as it comes straight from the larouchepac website response, and does not directly relate to the death scene.  But that’s the point.  Similar to Ruth Tuttle’s description in Younger Than That Now (go to part 3), wherein a street altercation is immediately blamed on a nefarious plot by Nelson Rockefellar to disrupt the organization.  At which point Tuttle decides to exit stage left.  But I don’t know who the “friendly friends” are conjectured to be in the cases of Duggan (perhaps the German police?) or the Rockefeller incident.  The imaginary power has enlarged.  Or maybe not, as evidenced by the threat of assassination posed by the Russians (now their friendly friends) in the 1980s.  The problem encountered in 1974 was limited becauses those were just street canvassers.  Jeremiah Duggan does not exist so much as an imaginary battle between the Dick Cheney / Al Gore tag-team and Larouche.  It does make me wonder what this person was thinking in terms of testing herself.

As the Alan Osler blog post about the Duggan conference features comments about the — er — seminal piece of work that was “Dope, Inc”, this dopers’ story might amuse someone.  And add to a misguided sense of righteousness amongst a group that celebrates and commemerates the highest reaches of culture, pooh-poohing gutter-level pop-culture.

Incidentally, a reminder for college scenes such as this one.  Don’t much overdo it — it’s not worth it — but this is pretty relevant at this moment.:

“I mean: Obama is a racist. I mean, with an African father–he wasn’t much of an African father, but was an African father of Kenya. He was part of a British operation, which took over Kenya, through MI5’s operation. But this guy was away from Kenya, and he married a Margaret Mead type, a woman who had a number of successive husbands, like Margaret Mead did. Went out to the poor, brown people, in Asia, and had sex with them! It was called “Coming in Samoa.” [groans, laughter] And she wore through a number of successive husbands, and by them, had various children. And therefore, you’ll find Obama’s ancestry, if you chase his family tree, everybody’s climbing and swinging from the branches there–from all over the world! All parts of the world! This guy is the universal man. Every monkey in every tree, from every part of the world, has participated in the sexual act of producing him. And he works for organized crime–which is a branch of British intelligence.”

But you already knew that.

Question:  Is this anything?  I will let you ponder that question.  I say it is something — pure noise signifying not much, perhaps, but someone (Alan Osler, I suppose) sat at a computer keyboard, logged onto his internet website blog, and typed this out.  To begin with:

Some of Larouche’s work has merit – he writes well about the economy, and predicted the crash that we are seeing now accurately several years ago. He also knows a thing or two about classical culture.

That’s a hoot, really.  To paraphrase this by quoting Homer Simpson, “Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.”  I have an imagined realm of people who take “Lyn Marcus” with some amount of legitimacy — surfing the arena of paranoid discontent round about Alex Jones and Jeff Rense and various websites which scrubbed out some material on the Y2K scare and replaced it with 9/11 conspiracy.  Where this hits is with the constant drum-beat of doom regarding the economy, the classical culture does not figure much.  Unique, at least.

But that’s undermined round about the observation regarding Chip Berlet’s fashion sense and his “penis bulge”.  I’m sure Socrates would be proud — or, for that matter, Schiller.  Additionally the fine Acronym of an organization, “C.U.N.T.S.” — who indicates the Larouche Organization’s cultural refinement with And this fascist conference was another desperate attempt at slandering LaRouche. That british MP is a cunt. Everyone should call his office and call him a cunt.
On these other gutter-dwelling creatures I need not say a word, except to remind those who read this that these people will be remembered in history as total cunts.  Bravo.  All of this is fine and appropriate, because Chip Berlet used the word “Bastard”.  (Incidentally, the last time I saw that word used as an acronym, someone had signed a federal form to form a pac “Citizens United Not Timid” as a very crude anti-Hillary Clinton organization, geared up for the general election.  The word resurfaced with a t-shirt regarding Sarah Palin, which was the central focus of John McCain’s rebuff to John Lewis and others’ cries regarding intolerance expressed at McCain / Palin rallies.)  But the use of the word here is as much to avoid any accidental possibilitty of someone sympathizing with his cause as anything else.

Chip is holding up one of LaRouche’s more entertaining magazines, the “Children of Satan” special. I have read it – it is interesting, but, well, “Anti British”. Chip says it is “antismitic”, and points to a picture of Dick Cheney (who isn’t Jewish – or even Arabic). […] Everyone is saying LaRouche is anti Semitic, even though LaRouche blames the British for everything, including stuff that everyone else blames on Israel. The Simpsons and Futurama take the piss out of LaRouche because he is an oddball. These people here are as bad as the old man.

I have that basic feeling with this frequent comment, “There is no anti-semitism here — it’s anti-British!”, which is “Have it your way.”  That is an even more insane proposition.  But, first off, the purpose of this event as stated by the Org:

At a time when the collapse of the global financial system has propelled American economist Lyndon H. LaRouche, once again, to the center of international politics, a propaganda campaign, organized from Great Britain, is scheduled to take place in Berlin, Germany, for the purpose of attacking Mr. LaRouche and targeting his wife …

The conspiratorial worldview is one pointed inward: the Larouche Conspiracy is the pointless task of convincing a few hundred individuals that their man is someone of any import.  The statement goes on to express the history of the politicos acting on behalf of Jeremiah Duggan to stop Larouche as he had become the most major critic of the lead up to the Iraq War.  Comfortably you slide into this as a tact against the British Empire.  Anecdotally, I can point to two people who agree with the “code language”.  This evangelizer of the cause at the leading neo-nazi website, explaining to his fellow White Supremists how to properly understand Larouche in the battle against ZOG.  The other one is Mr. Ossifur, the leader of the Larouchian Cryonics Movement (???), who is at constant battle with the Jewish Cryonics force — basically because they take the subject seriously and hence don’t take him seriously.  Alan Osler is completely right about Futurama, it appears.

It is a little off to say that the accusation is that Jeremiah Duggan “was targetted” because he was Jewish.  I believe it runs more along the lines of he “was targetted” because he was Jewish and was calling out the anti-semitic blusters.

I am expected to play that game of Equivalency in reading this blog post.  The Larouchians are spouting conspiracy theories — the anti-Larouchians are spouting conspiracy theories.  (You know… the critics?  But to link that is a false equivalency on my part, of course:  History won’t remember Larouche, or will as a rather odd footnote — ’tis already forgotten him anyway.  I’m having a hard time picturing this conference as anything but sparsely attended — after all, it concerns freaking Lyndon Larouche, goddamnedit. <i>late edit:  reportedly from 100 to 150 through the day being in the room.  And I don’t really have any basis to judge that.  Reports will trickle in, I’m sure.</i>)  So we get this:

She [Molly Kronberg] just said that LaRouche was responsible for her husband’s suicide 18 months ago, unaware of how oxmoronic she is being.
“I have proof. It is in print”.I want to say “well, where is it then? Did the dog eat it?”

Start with the memo of April 11, 2007 and we can go in various directions from there.  I went through a rather bizarre interchange back then with members of the organization on this blog.  The Game of forcing an Equivalency is going to get you every time.

I imagine this conference did some good.  It is enough to match the following two items together: The Untimely Death of Jeremiah Duggan and The Lyndon Larouche Movement under various names.  The lesson is merely: do not follow them into Wiesbaden.  Or into a basement dwelling.  It is with that that I do welcome a first hand account from whomever — even this thing.  And it is with that that this blog post plays a small role with that task.

A few months ago, someone marked as “Anonymous” stuck up a blog at blogspot.com called “Larouche Watch”, which seemed to be evoking the “Anonymous” who had been going after Scientology.  They posted up a few posts — reprints of a few articles, I suppose most notably the Avi Klein piece for the Washington Monthly.  But it was all very sparodic, and the rss feed stopped.  Going over to the blog, I see a shift of sorts in editorial direction, deleted to a new first post with some feign of “balance” in the offing.  Go figure.  In lieu of waiting for something like that to materialize, I guess I have to continue to do some grunt work here (if you call cutting and pasting various items every so often “grunt work”.  Because the world needs to know when Ann Coulter makes a cutting seemingly antiquated Larouche reference?)

Um.  Exciting news about four untimely deaths?  First off, Jeremiah Duggan:

Among the scheduled participants are German Parliament members Hans-Christian Ströbele (Greens) and Gert Weisskirchen (Social Democratic Party), as well British lawmaker Simon Hughes. Also speaking will be former members of the LaRouche movement from Germany, the United Kingdom, France and the United States.

The forum is sponsored by Weisskirchen, who is representing the chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe on Combating Anti-Semitism, and Ursula Caberta, the head of the focus group on Scientology at the Interior Ministry of Hamburg.

Prompted by the mysterious death of Jeremiah Duggan in 2003, Simon Hughes, Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, will travel to Berlin this Friday to attend a forum at the House of Democracy and Human Rights entitled ‘Does the LaRouche Group Present a Danger to Society and a Danger to the Individual?’

According to the parent’s of the late 22-year-old, the notorious right-wing organisation was responsible for their son’s death, an accusation that has so far been brushed aside by German authorities.While officials claim Jeremiah committed suicide, throwing himself into oncoming traffic on a busy autobahn, the Duggans attest they have forensic evidence to prove otherwise. […] Armed with what she claims is irrefutable evidence acquired by hiring her own independent forensic pathologists, Erica has made submissions to the Attorney General for a further probe into her son’s death. Her investigation revealed that he may have been battered with a blunt instrument and that there were no tyre marks or other signs on Jeremiah to indicate that a vehicle had come into contact with the body.Now, Hughes will add another voice to the family’s five year campaign. The MP told the Jewish News: “As a London MP I feel an obligation to support the family. I want to raise the profile of this situation. The fact is, the Schiller Institute acts with anti-semitic values and is very, very dubious. I am absolutely clear that there has not been a satisfactory explanation of what happened. We owe it to Jeremiah to make sure this is not swept under the carpet.”

But wait.  Just who is this Simon Hughes?

On his proudest achievement in parliament since 1997: “A young man called Jamie Robe was kicked to death in Rotherhithe in August 1998. Using my community links I helped break the wall of silence, encourage witnesses to give evidence, and secure convictions.” Hughes had to receive police protection following death threats linked to his advocacy for the family of Jamie Robe. The episode became an ITV1 drama, with actor Robin Kermode portraying Hughes.  AND

Simon Hughes was an important figure in the fight to grant a young gay man, Mehdi Kazemi, asylum so he would not be deported to his homeland of Iran, which had executed his boyfriend and almost certainly would have executed him. Mehdi Kazemi thanked Hughes in a letter to people across the world who fought to save his life: “I would like to say thank you to my local MP, Mr Simon Hughes, and his team who gave me the chance to live and made a miracle happen when he heard that my life was in serious danger and asked the Home Office to suspend my deportation in December 2006. I would not be here if it hadn’t been for his intervention. He was here for me then and he was here for me again when I was eventually sent back to the UK in April this year. I do not know if I would have been granted my refugee status without him.”

But that’s wikipedia.  Where anyone can drop positive or negative information on a politician.  It just so happens two moments from his career were stuck up by supporters of Hughes.  For the real lowdown on this Mr. Hughes, you have to go to the Schiller Institute page, and you will see the truth, which is: he’s also connected with a Friend of Israel.  Hint hint.   What is bizarre on the “Schiller Institute Page” is that the game of “Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon” has one more person by way of Simon Hughes to this “Israel” than with the other five members of the British parliament who pushed a probe into Jeremiah Duggan’s death.

I do not see this going anywhere, with way too many road-blocks to proceed much further — the Wiesbaden Conference has been isolated away and shut off from the World at large for a reason.  Which is not to say I think any of it has been in vain.  The simple reality is that in the shadow of the Iraq War, Larouche had a hook with which to grow Version #2 of his cult.  That has stalled and crashed, due in no small part to easy awareness of Jeremiah Duggan. Though, also probably there is some natural turn-over (in this case turn-out) by the simple reality that the cult ceases to be any fun at a certain point.

As the cult settles into its current role of rambling on about the Worldwide Financial Crisis — and his take goes like this:  “The British are having fun; back to their roots in the time of Edward III; they’re going back to their roots, their Fourteenth Century roots. British economists return to Fourteenth Century roots, in the New Dark Age of the Fourteenth Century.“  “The only thing we can say about this,” he continued “which really sums it up, is that some people have a zeal to return to the middle of the Fourteenth Century. There’s no other way to describe it accurately.” — it should be noted that that does not hold a candle to the Perpetual Financial Crisis plaguing the Organization.

Looks like Bad Days at Black Rock–scanning recent “Ops Bulletins” (the ending sections of the “Morning Briefings,” in which LYM, or the “field,” or whoever’s out there these days, reports its activities) suggests that the LaRouche org is making even less money than it’s been making for years….

Squads of LYMers report making, oh, $4 on a “deployment.” ( —- Which is pretty interesting, considering the pamphlets have a supposed “$5 Donation Recommened” price-tag. —- )  I’m not kidding. When time permits, I’ll post the quotes……., as we all know, the real money (sic) doesn’t come from the field. Howsabout the phones?……

I don’t know, but they recently had one of those all-hands-on-deck Sunday “deployments” of everyone in Leesburg, rushing to the office to dial for dollars. Guess they’re feeling the pinch…….. And Barbara wasn’t always exactly the way she is now.

I had always assumed the evolution of the “Economic Model”, such as it was, which had schlepped expenses at Kenneth Kronberg and PMR and walk away scot-free from Printing Expenses, would have de-centralized the much thinner and oft-littered pamphlets to local Kinkos, after printing out a master copy from some student’s account at a University.  This is an exaggeration, but perhaps not too much of one.

If you look below we see something never seen before. The lit is being printed around the country if I am reading the expenses correctly. This means that there is no longer any central printing but local printing which places even more of a burden on the regions and their local business fronts. In this busines model, the downward spiral continues as the LYM and LYMettes are being moved from their free love ins at the campuses to hardball nickle and diming at card table shrines and carcinogen inhalation intersections.  The tweeners like a John Morris and others are being moved around the country to get the regional field income rising as you now have to pay for the paper delusions instead of just sponging off of PMR to the transfinite and beyond.

Here are some accounts paid. We do not know what the total bill is, however, I would not discount the cult building up credit and having a larger bill than what we see here in money paid.  I only looked at a few pages and pretty obvious printing related companies. What is amazing is seeing how much is paid out in rents and utilities for our “volunteers” and how the stipends may be getting interlinked with LPAC and the local corporations.

-RODGERS & MCDONALD $196,514 Carson, Ca
-MCARDLE PRINTING CO $102,092 Upper Marlboro, MD
-AUTOMATED GRAPHICS SYSTEMS $86,688 WHITE PLAINS, MD
-UNITED PARCEL SERVICE $85,512 for delivery
-TRI STAR OFFSET $67,071 Maspeth, N.Y.
-SILVER COMMUNICATIONS $43,999 Sterling, Va Graphics
-CPG CACI PRODUCTIONS GROUP $23,500 Chantilly, Va AV production
-GEM/LASER EXPRESS, INC $20,206 Dulles, Va Toner
-FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP $19,829 shipping
-ECHO $15,469 Leesburg, Va May be direct mail service
-WORLDCOMP $11,531 This could be the last payment
-POSTMASTER, LEESBURG $8,279
-AVALANCHE SERVICES $8,027 Kearneysville, WVa
-MARKET SHARE SERVICES $7,510 Burbank, Ca print/mail
-COLORCRAFT OF VIRGINIA $5,041 Sterling, Va

This appears to be only current to June of this year, so by the next filing we can see how much is being spent on printing. Without a PMR to be soaked, hard cash needs to be funneled into paying printers and suppliers instead of LYM and LYMette “volunteers”.

Well, the buck stops somewhere.  Either a shadow of Financial Obligations looms over Larouche — as it had with PMR — or he could brush it aside in his realm as a British – Zionist plot, or… it gets to be pushed down to the road to this moment.

Two items from a new page of obituaries for Gary Genazzio and John Morris, for what I guess would be the Org’s last words on those deaths.:

I didn’t know Gary well. My one vivid recollection is from the winter of 1984, working with Gary in a small, temporary, ad hoc local office in Cleveland. It was a Sunday, and our fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants budget was depleted. Incessant torrents of rain came down. I remember going to a freeway off-ramp with Gary, brandishing zip-loc bags of campaign literature at motorists until they opened their windows in the downpour in order to support our intrepid campaign. The memory of Gary’s unfailing good humor and esprit de corps that day has stayed with me through the years.  […]

Good bye, John, it was a privilege to be your friend, and we will miss you terribly. Arrivederci in a better world, a world in which there is no rain, gasoline never ends, and finally justice and peace prevail.

In case you do not recall, forgot, or never knew in the first place: they died on a rainy night, having run out of gasoline en route from one Regional Organization to another.  But don’t worry, folks.  Lyndon Larouche received another name drop on a Russian television show, and his supporters are sure to be hard at work at wikipedia to gain his props.  LYMers continue to wander in and through college lectures, to no real effect — en route to earning those $4.  And Carroll Quigley quotations are sure to appear in a blog comment near you — so watch for that one as well.

Conservative Republican pundit Ann Coulter has, on a few occasions of late, been referencing Lyndon Larouche en route to mocking Barack Obama.  A slight variation in definition came with her appearance on the Hannity and Colmes show in the post vice presidential debate segment, and from the transcript.:

COULTER: Right. I — I wonder — I mean it’s going to be a tough year for Republicans, just because of the 12th year, but I just don’t think that argument works in America anymore.

How many times do we have to defeat the Soviet Union? I mean as long as people are making money, they are hiring other people. Oh and by the way, that reminds me of another Linden (SIC) Larouche-like statement made by Joe Biden last night.

And that’s when he claims that — you quickly brushed over just now — that years ago Obama was warning about subprime mortgages.

HANNITY: When?

COULTER: Yes, produce that.

Andrew Sullivan produced it, and in the somewhat tuncated Senate career of Barack Obama back to 2007 just has to count as “years”.   That being said, Obama hardly forecast the current turmoil as Linden Larouche did.  And Linden Larouche forecast so much more and was way ahead of him, able to see a new Dark Ages Interval as far back as 1967 and probably 1958.  And today gasoline costs $3.70 and bread costs $100,000, the stock market recently suffered the 17th greatest percentage loss in history when it dropped 777 points, and George Soros is hard at work with John Train to create even more suffering.

My explanation for why Ann Coulter has Linden Larouche on her mind is that she is suffering from the Dennis Miller Syndrome.  She searched for a widely forgotten cultural reference, and landed on a man everyone believes is dead.  No word on whether she saw a copy of the latest “One Year Later” treatsie lying around — complete with a giggling Linden before a bunch of scenes from the current Credit Crunch.  I did see a couple of copies lying in a public spot, which I modestly tossed in the garbage.  The Larouchies parked themselves in front of the downtown mall, with a reasonably popular slogan “Stop the Bailout”.  I imagine any number of people might come up, say some agreeable things, and then look down, see Larouche’s giggling visage, groan, and avert all eye contact as they roll into the mall to do some bargain-hunting.

It is a better fit than what animated the Larouchies in the period between the end of Hillary Clinton’s campaign — or the post-game sideshow of the “PUMA”s, and the fall of Lehman.  That is promoting the Russian incursion into Georgia.  No real illusion of grass roots support from the public on that one.  Some highlights of this focus are found in the wikipedia discussion for Linden.

Please add the following to the section “India, Russia, and China”: On August 21, 2008, LaRouche was interviewed on Russia Today, the globally-broadcast English-language TV network sponsored by the Russian government. The topic of the interview was the 2008 South Ossetia war.[1] –Polly Hedra (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You’ve got a point. We have articles on many academics and experts who appear as “talking heads” on news programs and we don’t report on their every appearance, even on more prestigious programs than RT. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is evidence of the fact that LaRouche, who is treated as a pariah in his native land, is counted among “academics and experts” over at the other superpower. Therefore, it is more notable than your typical example of “academics and experts” being interviewed. –Terrawatt (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This interview is very notable because relations between the U.S. and Russia are at a dangerous low point, and it is significant that Russia chose LaRouche as an American commentator to feature at this moment in history. I don’t see any reasonable objection to adding two sentences about it to the article — it complements what is already there in the Russia, China and India section. I propose this version: In August 2008, LaRouche was interviewed on Russia Today, a Russian government TV network, on the topic of the 2008 South Ossetia war. LaRouche said it was “part of a British-led operation with American support, which was intended to crush Russia by a series of encirclement actions.”[3] —Polly Hedra (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

When I checked the site I saw that they conduct at least a couple of interviews a day. Talking on an obscure propaganda network for 2 minutes isn’t really notable. Frankly, I think the most interesting thing about it was that the interviewer was trying to get him to say it was started by the U.S. while LaRouche had a different agenda. But we can’t say that of course. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia bio of James Abourezk reports that he was interviewed on the Al Manar TV network, which seems to be an analogous situation. But rather than argue legal precedents, I think that it is notable that while there is a pattern of negative press coverage of LaRouche in the US (amply documented in this bio,) there is also a pattern of positive press coverage in Russia. Of course, their TV networks are “propaganda networks,” whereas our TV networks are unblemished and pure. —Marvin Diode (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If we have a source describing this pattern of poor coverage of LaRouche by the U.S. press, and favorable coverage by the Russian press then that’d be useful for the article. We shouldn’t try to make that point on our own, as that would be original research. There are probably over 1000 english-language TV networks worldwide, not including the public access channels that every local cable company carries. The subject managed to get a brief interview on one of them, which received zero notice outside of this page. Claims that this interview is important because the U.S and Russia may go to war is based on speculation. Would his views on UFOs be relevant because ETs may land someday? It’s the same logic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I compared Wikipedia biographies of three political activists of comparable notoriety. The John B. Anderson bio briefly discusses his education and wartime experience, keeping it to two short paragraphs. The Ralph Nader bio devotes a short paragraph to Nader’s family, no wartime experience. In the case of Ross Perot, there is no “early life” information at all. In each case, the focus is on the subject’s political activities, including the most recent ones. –Marvin Diode (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Do they mention every TV interview that the subjects have ever had? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay.  That’s all the big news from out of Leesburg.  Ann Coulter now has the name as something of a running joke, this man makes historic appearance on “Russia Today”, and a couple of stray copies of a hastily released pamphlet covered with a giggling old man which were promptly tossed in the garbage.  I also note the odd appearance of some conspiracy-oriented Internet Radio (re: ameteur) blog or two reporting that they were contacted by Linden, available for interview.  Which I guess supliments an appearance on Jeff Rense and, um, Russia Today.  As for greater issues herein, reportedly from factnet, on the onslaught of the Economic Crisis in the real world, “leaks” became more tight-lipped — which does make some psychological sense:  the brow-beating ups a wee bit, lingering doubts fester.

Quotation gem for the day:  I hate to say it (because I was there too), but if you’re in the ninth grade worrying about a cultural revolution, you’re having developmental problems.

Yes.  The Cause of a Cultural Revolution should wait at least until your Junior year.

The last time Lyndon Larouche poked his way into any public conciousness — in the US, some modest blips are abound in Great Britain, eh? — and this is a rather marginal definition of “public” here, Larouche spoke out about Barack Obama as being the product of “every monkey in every tree” and OH THE MISCEGENATION! It was a blip to be sure — a back page on daily kos, Wonkette, some blurbs for news aggregations to followers of cults and of news of particular interest to African Americans. A blip is what Larouche gets.

I had been wondering, though, when and how one item of Obama’s popular awareness with popular gray-area of public discourse would poke out of Leesburg. No self-respecting conspiracy theorist can possibly leave the topic of the Assassination of Barack Obama alone, right? Well, here we go:

But my view is, they’re still going to dump him. I see the signs of the readiness to dump him all over the world. And they get him in any way, they can assassinate him. I mean, a guy like this, with his—he comes in a sense, as long as he’s around, they’re stuck with him, but they don’t want him. What do they do with him? They kill him. And they try to kill him with the kind of effect would (sic) be most useful for their purposes.

You know, one of Molly Kronberg’s friends’ll probably kill him or something like that—and put the blame on us! [laughs]

That makes sense. [Sure it does.] It’s the way they do things.

Interesting, I believe. It’s a demented bit of sarcasm, and really is more a posit that Molly Kronberg is leading a troupe against Larouche and blaming Lyndon for killing Kenneth Kronberg. And that is where the demise of his organization comes from. Thus Lyndon Larouche manages to broach the provocative topic of Barack Obama’s assassination without saying anything about it, instead dwelling on intimately personal matters. Understand this falls into that weird realm of public / private consumption, as Lyndon Larouche has earlier gone on record declaring how pleased he is that every word he speaks is available to turn up for anyone’s reading pleasure — and I suppose I could go back and link to such, except I’m not terribly interested. Look on through this particular conversation, though, and you see Larouche once again reminiscing about the past Good old times — “We had fun” (and the authorities locked him up in prison because… they were having too much fun. Good one!) Appropriate enough for the Last Rites, I suppose, and here I can cue the following quote from an article rolling past defeated opponents of Oklahoma Senator James Inhoffe:

Inhofe has run against Republicans and he’s run against Democrats. He’s run against independents and Libertarians and a candidate from the Natural Law Party.
He even ran against one of the late Lyndon LaRouche’s minions.

And, naturally, a few days later in the Tulsa World.:

A Sunday Tulsa World story referred to the “late Lyndon Larouche.” LaRouche is not dead.

How would anyone know, really?

Sigh. I do have more cheeky bemusement. Maybe I’ll post it later in this very space. Have Fun, Everybody!

#1: Repeatedly Molly Kronberg is working on a book. Interesting. She probably ought be searching around for a publisher. Perhaps she might look into a publishing outlet in Northern Virginia that has published a ton of … um… esoterica (?), publisher by the name of “Benjamin Franklin Books”, which —

[PAUSE.]

I don’t know if that is a “five percent joke”, a “.00005 percent joke”, or if the context of these things pretty much assures anyone reading this will get it. Including the good folks in the Boiler Room in Leesburg. Hi everybody! Has Tony Papert started labelling his Tabs?

[PAUSE.]

Okay. That is what is called a “Call Back”. You would have to go down one or two entries in this subcategory to find I am referencing myself. A self-referntial footnote which does not amount to much, but we’ve been there before.

#2: An attempted explanation for the end-of-the-line which has been met regarding attempting any line on the current presidential election, post the lack of an appearance of Michael Bloomberg, post the end of the line for the “PUMA Movement” — which, I guess will now individually vote for whomever they will vote for — and with just a blip of a published outline on the emergance of Sarah Palin on the National Stage. Whereabouts Obvious. I’m not much more than a “FACTNET Digest” here.:

This may be due to trying to figure out the upside for calling Palin supporters via the boiler rooms. If you take the WABAC machine to 1979 rememebr that one of the first big fundraising lists we began to boil was composed of Western State supporters of Reagan and people in the oil and gas business.

Palin fits the description of what we used to call.

YAHOOS

Those people were fed a steady diet of anti Trilat, CFR and Bilderberger material as we millked them monthly.

AFTER Reagan won the 1980 election, we created another hat to wear in the boiler rooms based on the RTL supporters . Lyn ran as a Dem who spent millions trying to screw Dems while we were calling up right wing lists to give us money to “defend Reagan” from the Dems and the KGB.

If the Salon crowd takes over the Russian franchise from Lyn, I would expect the Russians to be dropped , become Lyn’s latest enemy as the cult battles Al Gore, Obama and Soros in another concoction of delusions before the final exit.

You’d suppose. It seems he’s charging on for the Russian intrusion into Georgia, which leaves McCain on the sideline (unless he’d want to feign a great riff within the Republican Party to take sides in, as he’s pretended to do with the Democratic Party.) No, Mr. Ossifur’s iteration on this being THE SOURCE for understanding the election (shouldn’t he be ranting about Cryonics?) notwithstanding, they can’t place their chips anywhere in this election, for fun and profit. Biden is an obvious target in attachment with their long time crusade against Obama — Delaware Credit Card Industry? — picked up by your Tarpley and Solon. Not too difficult to frame a conspiracy here. Not that I want to do the job for this totalitarian cult in figuring out what to flog for their “Potemkin Village of a Potemkin Village” and donation stream.

#3: But it seems the look is backward. The “New Direction” declared in closing the door on this election promises all new videos at the l-pac website, the follow-ups to the “1932” video, which had been both a connecting bridge into the “Hillary Clinton for President” cult campaign, as well some odd “Lyn is FDR!!!” thought-process for the dozens of “LYM”ers. New videos for Putin-hugging purpose and, seemingly, preparing to die — always the subtext with this entity these days.

Forget the PUMAs. Now that neither convention has panned out the way Lyn wanted it–no Bloomberg candidacy, no Hillary candidacy, no kidnapping of Obama by British agents, no mysterious McCain illness–anyhow, now that Lyn’s past year of blather on the Presidential campaign has evaporated like morning dew, all the org is talking about is … RUSSIA.

And how Putin saved civilization by invading Georgia.

These people are loony-tunes. Meanwhile, Lyn’s telling his inner elites that it’s only because of him that Hillary stayed in the race.

#4: La Rouche’s cult is his failing – his analysis is brilliant — Tarpley is reasonably humble – his writing is 10 times better an. You lost me with the first two stences there, and the slight contradiction in assessment.

#5:  Hm.  Further illustration of the difference between the “Boomer LaRouche Site” (www.larouchepub.com) and the LYM version (www.larouchepac.com ) is Lyn’s “Virtually No Candidate” statement. Nancy has an article on it posted at the larouchepub site ( http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200…pres_cand.html ) that omits the embarrassing reference to “emotional breakdowns in Leesburg” found in the full version posted at larouchepac (http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008…candidate.html ) . The larouchepub.com site seems designed to actually try to win people over to LaRouche’s ideas. I’m not sure what the larouchepac site is designed to do. 
I believe this shows that one thing the “pac” site (obstensibly a political action committee operates to bundle up money for electoral candidates, but that doesn’t seem operable here, which theoretically would have had this money being spent to state senate seats and the like) is to wax the wheel of the LYM, hence the jab at the Boomers in the Central Committee is included in the otherwise identical press releases.  How this phrase been deleted by now?

You can expect to see the LaRouchies out “in force” at Denver. Unfortunately (for them, not us), their “force” isn’t too impressive. And I imagine their singing hasn’t gotten any better either. Guffaw.

The question:  Where are they?  I cannot find the evidence admist the, quote-in-quote, “Citizen Journalism” which is the realm of Blogs.  This is contrast to 2004, where — off in the margins but since I key on this I could reframe the margins into a sort of central focus– I learned that they were there in Boston, singing choral slightly bemusing various people as they walked in and out of the convention center, and where I learned that they made odd hard to follow accusations at a press conference with Terry McAuliffe (sp?) about a grand conspiracy to keep them out of Youth Hostels.  This leaves aside their version of events, which was quite grand indeed.

It seems now that that was about where their mild success, such as that was, of the Bush Era reached its crescendo.  Now I can’t find anything.  Are they there?  If so, is anyone noticing them?  Have the small band of “PUMA” protesters managed to shake them away from globbing onto their cause?  The organization skeletal is becoming further emaciated.  This particular “fringe watch” is becoming harder and harder to grasp at.

I am tempted to suggest they don’t have as much an ostensible reason for being there as they did in the past, when — um — Larouche was a Democratic Presidential Candidate on the ballot and was feigning his cause of winning a nomination.  Or, as suggested last time, being Kerry’s “Secret Weapon” of a running mate… which, I admit, would have shocked the political establishment — to the point where the Democratic Party would have taken the unprecedented step of checking Kerry into an insane asylum and of finding another nominee to run post haste.  But they do have an obstensible cause to be there, as suggested in their “1932” video, the cause of connecting with the Clintons against the Soros-operated Obama clique.  A bust in the real world, yes, but that never stopped them in the past.  No, they are just a dissipated outfit compared to even 2004.

An eye toward his immortality, he has issued a statement that spiritually sets up Hegla.  (Linked to the factnet linking because I tend to avoid linking to “L-PAC” itself.)  Obstensibly a celebration of her sixty years, it actually mostly meanders around George Soros, Abraham Lincoln, and those neo-Malthusian Greens — the latter I’ve grasped is Hegla’s Pet Enemy Phraseology.  The Torch has been passed, The Dream Can Never Die, and… two becomes one… in the eye of the two dozen people left in the LYM:

“For that reason, my beloved Helga is, in fact, almost as precious to you, as she is to me.

So, unable to find Larouche in Denver, I turn over to Webster Tarpley — who probably is better suited to be referenced in saying that the “Torch Has Been Passed to a new Generation of Wack Job Opportunistic Conspiratorial Demagouges,” albeit one with a different aim (not obsessed with the idea of a small collection of people chanting his name).   Webster Tarpley is interviewed on the Alex Jones show, no doubt in anticipation of next week when Alex Jones will be interviewed on the Webster Tarpley Show.  One final lunge into the realm of the dissipating and transitory “PUMA” movement before slightly adjusting his message for the duration of either the Obama Presidential Campaign or the Obama Presidency, depending on how things turn out, hoping his Obama Nation book will be regarded years from now by elements in our political spectrum in the same way his Larouche-era George Herbert Walker Bush is (complete with prominet blurb from Kevin Phillips).  It’s a racket, good work if you can get it.

Item #1:  Jeffry Steinberg came back from Florida with a tan.  It’s the talk of Leesburg.  I guess.  What I really want to know, though, is who keeps stealing the Tab from the bottom of the frigerator?  That’s Papert’s property!

Item #2:  Mr. Ossifur continues his advocacy on behalf of merging Larouchianism with the field of Cryonics.  He asserts that he is “the only person in cryonics who is looking at cryonics from a larouche perspective.“  This strikes me as quite the booby prize — CONGRATULATIONS.  A real Rebel Without a Cause, he.  On the Run, Under the Gun.  Further proof of the British control of the Vast Cryonics community can be found, as pointed out here, by a post at “Cryonics Chat” from Alvin praising British funding for some Scientific research.  The British Empire is on the way out, though, to be replaced by FDR / Larouche.  Which is great, because he watched some webcast of Larouche and thinks he saw him reference some life-extension, meaning his leader may just be slowly Cyronically freezing himself while he’s still alive.

Item #3:  A neo-nazi posting under the banner of David Duke at the web’s pre-eminent neo-nazi website agrees with Dennis King’s “code words”.  Go to the amazon.com reviews on Dennis King’s book for a bemusing Larouchie mocking this grand concept.  Anyway, I guess I’ll file that away into a mental folder if revenire shows up and mentions it.

Item #4:  For the Kremlinologist:  Helga Zepp is featured prominently on the sidebar of the larouche pages, demanding that “Ibero-America” sign a petition for food.  Or… we sign a petition to get “Ibero-America” food.  Or food will be transported to “Ibero-America” thanks to a petition.  At any rate, her huge face dons the side of these web-pages, and that’s what’s important.  No word on whether she is well tanned.

Item #5:  Also flogged, Steinberg appears on Russian Television.  We have seen the future. Russian Authoratarian Government Coddling.  They are now publishing their emittions in Russian, apparently.  Weee!  (Also the future for Steinberg: George Soros conspiratorial bashing. (Feeding into a niche in the political spectrum for the moment.)

Item #6:  So.  Webster Tarpley.  What can one say?  He gets around a bit.  Recently bumped into nooks and crannies of the blogosphers due to interjecting himself in that whole “PUMA” thing.  The upshot is that everyone refers to him as a “Larouche associate”, or — at best, and I suppose more accurately, “one stepped removed”, by way of dismissing the largely easily dismissable “PUMA” movement.  It is kind of amusing, though I wish I had a clearer idea of what is the modern day connection.  Skip to wikipedia, where Chip Berlet argured about the proper place for the Larouche connection on that page.   Out of curiosity, I wondered how this meets a far more sympathetic figure in Robert Zubrin — who, I don’t know, doesn’t carry as much of that into his later career.  In between these two (sounds like he’s still in versus would never know) would be Robert Dreyfss (explains some things), whose wikipedia entry seems to have a “feel justified” mentioning because “The “about author” section includes photos of Dreyfuss and his biography from this period.”  (The discussion page reveals no controversy on the matter, though.)  As for Tarpley — flag him.  The Democratic Convention is this week, and he’s sure to show up somewhere, flogging his anti-Obama book and perhaps tying himself into the “birth certificate” nonsense.

It seemed about time someone made that PUMA – Larouche connection.  Except it appears Larouche loses, as this coverage float-over is one removed, over to Webster Tarpley.  (Or does that mean Tarpley loses, as he cannot be mentioned without mention of his Larouche connection as a necessary explication?)  But the vibe remains, and to quote someone from The Atlantic:

“Don’t know if you guys saw this. It kinda made my day. More on the nuts that comprise PUMA here. It gets ill. I’m talking Lyndon Larouche/”Exterminate Jew Power” ill. Hmm, my guess is that these guys aren’t team players on the lam–but nuts filing into the asylum.”

Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish.  I mean, I do not believe Gary Genazzio was Jewish.

[Pause.]

So, in review, being for the benefit of the wikipedia-checking David Weigel for a bit more: Webster Tarpley renounced his association with Larouche (as seen here), referred to his organization as a “Maoist Cult”, but has carried on a parallel path of disseminating the exact same conspiratorial blather as Larouche (sans the omnipresent mention of the name), only with access to more arenas in the kook-o-sphere than can be afforded to Larouche — widely known now as, um, leading what is essentially a Maoist Cult.  (Larouche does sneak into the People’s Daily in China on occasion.) I do not know if this makes Tarpley an affiliate, successful spin-off, or if Jeff Steinberg and Webster Tarpley are involved in some mushroom-induced grand conspiracy of their own.

And now he jumps from his perch at “9/11 Truth” over to that odd Hillary Clinton Personality Cult that is PUMA, where he can propagate past some imagined and un-examined grievances over the Democratic Party nominating process and on to the key-pin of George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski.  And perhaps sell some copies of his on-some-best-sellers-list anti-Obama “Post Modernist Coup” book?  (Incidentally, thumb through the Brzenski-Russia-hating thesis and do the work yourself of parsing out Obama, Clinton, and McCain’s tact right now visa-vie Russia/Georgia.)

In other news of… this variety, Dennis King, after a fairly lengthly absence, some new material for his “newest postings” update.  Quote:

Lyndon LaRouche tells us how to conquer the world in one easy lesson. The text of this 1978 article–the most extreme version of the Fantasy Hitler’s “Great Design”–is accompanied by comments (in brackets) that expose, paragraph by paragraph, his appalling ignorance of history, his attempts to block all independent thinking by his followers, his obsession with plots by Jewish bankers, his use of code language, and the malignant narcissism that underlies his eagerness for a war of world conquest to be commanded by himself as President/Philosopher King of the Neoplatonic Humanist Republic of America.

I have to admit my reaction to this hyperbolic description was: “All very much true, but… So?”  It’s a little easy to get jaded on failed potential president/philosopher kings of neoplatonic humanist republic of americas.

I am tempted to link to, say, a transcript of a debate with a “PUMA” blogger from NPR, but I see no real reason to bother.

I’ve been meaning to come up with something to say about “PUMAS’, a grouping of Hillary Clinton supporters who hold grievances about Barack Obama and a set of demands that work their way from various grievances which come from backing a losing presidential candidate who they think should win.

PUMA is an acronym which means in its pac-forming formation “People United Means Action” and in its bloggier edgier formation “Party Unity My Ass”.  The more raucous version seems to stick, if this media mention is any evidence.

There really is nothing to say about them, even if it might be interesting to peak in and see what they are whipping up.  And incidental comedy inherent in, for instance, the advertising swarm sticking up a pro-Obama moveon ad on a “proud puma” blog.  (Maybe I ought do a screen-shot for the time sensitivity of this thing.)

As with celebrating the overthrown Shah of Iran back ini 1980, the Champion of Lost Causes that is Lyndon Larouche has floats in to claim the mantle of promoting Hillary Clinton, and dastardy Al Gore and George Soros-oriented Democratic Party Chieftain conspiracy theories on how the nomination was swatched from Obama to Clinton.  Such the case that someone somewhere links to them, and Larouchies are the most visible contingency in gatherings of “PUMA“s.

Understand, the British assassinated Abraham Lincoln.  And the PUMA movement is the ideological descendents of the Franklin Roosevelt campaign which defeated the banking collaboraters of Raskob and Alfred Smith (sort of the DLCers of their day), and Obama’s backers are the modern day Raskobs who were defeated at the 1932 convention.  (I mention the assassination of Lincoln because that is where the Larouche “1932” video which “PUMA Warrior”‘s article is part of a current program.)

So, Hillary Clinton will be voted to the Democratic nomination in the 4-day campaign infomercials that are the modern day political conventions.  Because the PUMAs demand it.  If she is not, that’s just because of the dastardly George Soros.

And PUMA is lead by the vanguard Lyndon Larouche organization who will storm the convention and nominate Hillary Clinton.

I don’t know really how much of a presence to ascribe Lyndon Larouche in with a whole mass of “PUMA”s, but given the rather spare number of that movement — you have to look to find them, at best they’ll get this sort of ceremonial casting of Hillary Clinton votes at the convention which will be clocked in a manner to avoid having any media focus on those proceedings as opposed to the speeches — I don’t know why I shouldn’t just shrug and say… Lyndon Larouche… the Leader of the PUMA movement.  (Or is that too danged mean?)  Whatever, once you’ve concocted a narrow anti-Hillary Clinton bias in the Democratic nominating process you aren’t on level ground anyway.