Larouche long ago glommed onto the term “Noosphere”, and I invite you to look it up on the oh-so-dastardly wikipedia if you have never encountered the term before. A number of weeks ago, emitting from out of the boiler room in Loudon County, the downloadable pamphlet “The Noosphere Versus the Blogosphere”. (The introduction to is well worth the mocking gaze.) It appears to be an expansive definition of “blogosphere”, one that travels to include ALL OF THE INTERNET– touching especially on social networking sites and wikipedia– and on to video games and on to … Dungeons and Dragons?

Apparently the implicit has become explicit, and we find this:

Finally, consider that part of the business plan of Lyn is that when you have LCers ebing burnt out and replaced by newer yutes aevery few years, no one knwos about the past and is pretty much kept ignorant of the past, until now. Thus, the cult has ordered a top down banning of using the internet to look up the cult and emailing or being engaged in any discussion of cult history. basically Lyn has a few hundred yutes in the dark cave who only see Lyn.

The Internet is Counter-Revolutionary. More to the point:

“*P.S.* Snippets of daily emails have been appearing on that wily, suicide-inducing website, factnet; so, please, people, don’t share these e-mails with those bozos! And if you are a culprit, please call the war room, and apologize.”

I don’t know if a “yute” in the state of mind to send material to — well, basically xlcer– would be in the state of mind to respond to a demand to apologize, but then again we may have some psychological gray area of uncertaintly and conflicted duties and emotions here. Interesting to note too that factnet is apparently inducing suicidal thoughts in the author of this note, and also we once again see that reminder of the tragic events from last April.  (Conciously I believe the comparison they are aiming for is to the tragic suicide of the 13 year old who was yanked along by some bizarre antics of two adults over myspace.)

There is an element of mixed signals coming through, however. The Internet cannot possibly be turned off, because as well know Howie G is still out there. He turns up here. But more entertainly:

If you like LaRouche, and have noticed that the economy and financial system is collapsing, there is no need to apologize. For more LaRouche fun, go to

Yes. Yes. A Clarion call to courage to the… multitude… of individuals who “have no need to apologize”. But, why would they be surfing the internet for Larouche-related stuff if they’ve been told not to by the org? (Oh wait. This is for the “non-member” supporters. Like, for instance… [ ]. As well [ ].)

I have, over this Holiday weekend, received what amounts to a request to plug http://laroucheplanet.info/.  I have linked to it already, though I do not think I ever got around to posting it in the sidebar — aside from the “Internal Memo Generator”.  But there it is again.  Your best online bet for background Larouche-related material.

Absurd, Absurd.  It’s most absurd.  But Here I am, the Dingle Bird!

Okay.  What is absurd is the comment thread involving Robert Beltran.  A “Miss Anthropy” wanders in dangling supposed inside information, promising that Beltran’s involvement with Larouche is done and gone.  He insists that we (or whoever it is that is supposed to be doing this) need to “Dig deeper”, and so there is this bit of masturbatory stupidity:  You’re both wrong but if you can’t see the forest for the trees I can’t help you. All I can tell you is to dig deeper, if you really want the answers. It’s up to you to pick up the shovel. Sayonara.   Which gave me my only contribution to this — the sarcastic naming of  “Miss Anthropy” as “Deep Throat”.

At any rate, Robert Beltran has appeared in the L-PAC headlines, defending the greatness of William Shakespeare, because — as we all know — the world of Academia insists of calling him an over-rated Hack playwright.  Which leaves me with the question of what the hell anyone is suppoed to make of “Deep Throat” — Nixon sends G Gordon Liddy, cloaked in darkness at all times, to Woodward and Bernstein — and makes another third-rate performance of his task.

What was the point of that exercise?  God only knows.  The freaks over in Loudon never cease to amaze me.

A bit obscured, but of relevance, and just now with one thread reposted to FACTNet, several points of discussion with Steve on relatively esoteric matters that signal larger matters of importance.  As a practical matter, I’ve generally avoided interjecting with anything — both the ex-Larouchite Rachel Holmes and the concerned family member of a long time Larouchite — have better insight into what the hell it is the drawing value for a Larouchite.  But the term “Intellectual Cargo Cult” has been coined by someone at FACTNet, and it is what “Earnest One”‘s explanation of Larouche’s intellectual dishonesty regarding Lincoln is all about.  One of the sins of Larouche is that he has provided for college aged youth a short-cut for their thirst for knowledge that stunts their understanding to the very definition of sophomoric — a half knowledge whose gaps are filled, in this case to suit Larouche’s insistence that he falls in the lineage of just about everyone that is valuable to fall in the lineage for.

Speaking of the “Intellectual Cargo Cult”, a recent morning briefing… what the hell Larouche, Inc thinks it’s trying to pull with their website material.  (I should edit out eaglebreak’s comments, but I’m too lazy to right now.)  The game continues…

TO:ALL POINTS BY: TONY PAPERT/***

MORNING BRIEFING

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Stay Tuned for “Extreme Events!”

The vibrant and brilliant campaign of our Danish cothinkers, which has electrified (virtually levitated) that tiny but very important country [Duck! Here comes Denmark!], went into a new phase after the conclusion of yesterday’s elections. [They lost.] Our great Danes [Stop–you’re killing me] sent Lyn the message that they had had a lot of fun, and that, whatever the vote with which they will be credited [They didn’t get any votes] they are far better known, and more widely known, than they ever were before. This signal success [what success?] for our method [what method?], should serve to remind us in the US of all that we have lost since March [he means April 11]. It was about then that the LPAC mass organizing campaign, through which the “new politics” triumphed in the 2006 elections, was wound down and terminated. [We destroyed our printer; we ran out of literature; we freaked out the Boomer members.] Perhaps some Boomers thought we should be doing “infrastructure” instead. [Must mean paying the printer.]

Now we must regain the ground we have lost, and move forward from there. [Uh, Tony, maybe if you hadn’t written that April 11 briefing lead, you’d still have a printer. Speaking of which—I see they have you writing briefings again. Who are they trying to kill this time?]

An indispensable part of that mass campaign now, is the defeat and discreditation of the Internet brainwashing of MySpace, Facebook and video games. [We just found out the Internet is lethal to us.] In that connection, Lyn is working to complete a paper on “Extreme Events.” The first pages of his draft invite a comparison of that sequence of monstrosities from Michael Milken, through last week’s Myspace murders in Perugia– that sequence, to those “portents” of disaster which featured in the final scenes of Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” and other tragedies,– the dead rise from their graves, strange shrieks rend the night, and so forth. [Not so fast, Einstein. Back to the Cliff Notes for you].

Along those lines, a new feature is in advanced preparation for the LPAC website, which will raise howls of terror among those who merely more-or-less politely objected to the relatively very tame, “What is in Nancy Pelosi’s Head?” [Translation: They took down Nancy Pelosi’s head. Some of the yutes didn’t like it.] Stay tuned! When will it appear? Maybe at the midnight hour, some few days ahead! [Maybe Caesar’s ghost walks abroad and turns his sword in Tony’s very entrails. Anyhow, it’s on the LPAC site now.]

………………….

And yes, I too noticed the “myspace induced suicide” item… and had that thought “What a coincidence!”  (See also Larouchite complaint in the discussion page on the Ken Kronberg wikipedia page of Dennis King’s “crazy conspiracy theory”.)

From the sea of edits at wikipedia:

The supposed biography of Kronberg is an excuse to push a conspiracy theory about his death. —Masai warrior 23:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think a conspiracy theory is alleged. The article appears to lay out a story in which a failed business man is pushed to suicide by a lack of support from his community. No one disputes that version of events. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you know it was “lack of support from his community”? He left no suicide note. For all we know, he was pushed to suicide by a wife who was undermining his life’s work by supporting George Bush. In a matter like this, it is disrectful to the deceased to speculate about his motives, but the real issue here is that the usual gang, King, Berlet, etc., have ghoulishly seized upon Kronberg’s death to push their agenda. That’s why this is a coatrack article. —Masai warrior 13:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

….

Actually, no. Kenneth Kronberg is a WP:COATRACK article which was created as a vehicle to smuggle in a WP:FRINGE theory from Dennis King’s website, LYNDON LAROUCHE AND THE ART OF INDUCING SUICIDE. As the title suggests, the article accuses LaRouche of using some form of mind control to cause Kronberg to commit suicide. LaRouche is, of course, a living person. —Marvin Diode 06:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How does the belief that the actions of the LaRouche movement led to the suicide of Kronberg count as a “fringe theory”. It appears to be the mainstream view because it has been published in a mainstream reliable source. Also, we aren’t using the link you provided as a source. The page we’re using as a source is this memo. Do you have any basis for disputing the accuracy of the memo as posted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

……………………..

And on and on that goes.

………………

About the only susbtantial bit of partisan or ideological aruguing garnered from online discussion of the WaMo piece comes hereabouts and hereabouts. Robert Dreyfuss, distinguished enough individual who…

Maybe I should have “Robert Dreyfuss” keyed, to see if commenters such as Jean Gabriel — Rooseveltarians(?!?) take a hankering to them. Anecdotally, I can point to the name popping up with this comment: the work done by the best of the writers Ken published over the years: Spannaus, Chaiken, Salisbury. Or alumni like Robert Dreyfus. –suggesting his use as someone in the mainstream media a Larouchian feels they can hang their hat on in terms of “influence”.

Okay. A bit chagrained here. I cannot really comment on Dreyfuss’s book, essentially an apologia for the Shah of Iran as it was being deposed. It’s not impossible to imagine Hostage to Khomeini as a complete embarrassment of undiluted Larouchianism. But, delving further down that spiral, Dreyfuss was complicit in the very worst that Larouche had to offer:

Speaking of Robert Dreyfuss… he was one of the three authors of the infamous revisionist and antisemitic 1978 Campaigner “Zionism is not Judaism”.
Here is what he wrote about the “Myth of the Six million” (p.10):

“If the worship of the fortress at Masada by the modern Oxford- and Cambridge-trained Israeli elite is bad enough, the stench of the Big Lie emanates from the current propaganda about the Nazi holocaust. This point the U.S. Labor Party has documented elsewhere; the point need only be recapitulated here.
Among the strongest backers of the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi movement to power were the Zionist financiers of the City of London, the Hofjuden who had been deeply enmeshed in the “Return to the East” cult phenomenon since the rise of the official Zionist movement in the 1830s and afterwards. The Zionists viewed, the role of Nazism in Europe a process of race purification of the Jews, whereby the Jews that survived the holocaust would have passed through a “selection” process and would be fit colonists for Palestine. “

Does he still agree with it? If not, would he apologize?

The two other authors were Mark Burdman (who died three years ago) and Paul Goldstein (who escaped US Justice in 1987)

AND:
Robert Dreyfus has had endless meetings and phone calls with Jeff Steinberg for years. He probably has a better relation with him now than when he was in the LC. They both have the same friends .

In the book “Secret Warriors” one can find the name “Karen Kwiatowski” being described as a “Larouche Mole”. I have not seen the book and can’t verify that yet.

So there’s the grist for that mill.

In 1978, Gerald Pechenuk won .78 percent of the vote in a Missouri Congressional race. In 1987, one year following the triumph in Illinois, Pechenuk won 1.2 percent of the vote in a Democratic primary vote for Chicago ward-healer. (Or whatever the position is and is supposed to be.)  I see one more reference to him as having served as someone else’s campaign manager, which in Larouchian politics I am not entirely sure what that job is supposed to entail — the road to that fraction of a percentage point.  (Aren’t you just still deployed for the 85 year old?)  I assume there are other electoral battles he has fouht, but all I can say is that he is apparently occasionally prominently featured in Larouchian literature for his effective deployment, a successful end to a long career in Larouchian politics and that which everyone should aspire to, I suppose.

It looks like he is otherwise doing a job of juanting around the Internet, spreading the word.  I gathered this when I happened upon this, which is a gem.

In response to a posting with one of the quotes Avi Klein’s article seems to have pushed into the popular culture — or at least a segement of the Internet, “if anyone was made for blogging” — as well the idea that Internet killed the Cult Leader, Gerald Pechenuk responds with:

Did it ever occur to you that maybe, perhaps, just maybe, LaRocuhe is right, and that all the lying and denying of what he has said and continues to say about the causes of and solution to the ongoing crash of the global financial system are nothing more than smokescreens by people who are purveyors or dupes of people who just plain out oppose Larouche’s FDR-Lincoln Foudning Fathers American System solutions. THE CRASH IS undeniable. Attack and LIE about LaRouche as much as you care to, then when you are finished blowing smoke, tell me what YOUR SOLUTIONS are to the crash that he correctly and uniquely forecast.. And have fun when you do it…

Hee hee. Anyway, someone who seems to have had a first name basis with Gerald Pechenuk at one time or other responded, and all I could do was see if “Gerald Pechenuk” has ever, in posting things on the Internet, expressed an independent thought of his own, not initiated from the boiler room in Loudon.  Witness…

Dick Cheney… and a rebut.

That keen grip on national politics.

The Youth Vote in 2006, brought to you by L-PAC

Alito = Carl Schmitt = Hitler #1

Alito = Car; Schmitt = Hitler #2

Felix Rohatyn as the Man Behind the Democratic Party.

For updates on these new collaborative relationships building between and among the nations of the world that represent the largest part of humanity…

Children of Satan IV?

That old Blood / Gore canard.

Architecture.

… Worse than 1929…

Anytime you want to debate Abraham Lincoln…

Plato.

Now, what is interesting, and what I probably should look at with a closer eye, is the difference between when Gerald references his LarouchePac address for further information and inquiries, and when he does not — is there a chronological diliniation or a categorical one?  I suspect that when he is on friendly terms with an issue,  — within a sea of comments advocating Impeachment, for instance, or the flailing of the “End is Near” of our economic site, there is an impetus to try for that next step… to Larouche.  The “History News Network” item, on the other hand, he apparently does not feel like he could pull that off, for whatever reason.

Oh, jeez louise. Plucked from FACTNet, for the benefit of … whoever the hell reads this following of the Larouchian world of mine that doesn’t also read FACTNet… Commentary within provided by Eaglebreak, because I may as well not delete it and let her particular insight stay.  My comments provided with footnotes.

1. Sunday briefing, Nov. 4

LYN’S IDEAS ARE THE DRIVER FOR EVERY POLITICAL INITIATIVE IN THE COUNTRY AND THE WORLD–GET THE RESOURCES TO CARRY THEM OUT!

JEFF: Let me first of all start out by making sure that everybody’s attention has already been flagged to the LaRouchePAC website and the new animation which leads the website.[Everybody’s attention flagged years ago.]  And Lyn basically intervened against a certain flatness and went to the crew out here in the Basement and said, “Let’s apply the animations technology that we’re working with to really add some spice to the website,” (*1) and I think you’ll agree that the opening shot, the Nancy Pelosi Mask really is exactly what the doctor ordered. [Dr. Kevorkian.]
The other big challenge that we’re going to have to take up and solve this week, is a certain disconnect[They’re not making any money], between the LPAC income being generated versus the actual tremendous breakthroughs that are being made operationally, through the LPAC work in a number of different ways: Obviously, we’ve turned the country upside down already [Oh, swell], around the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act, and we know, without going into a lot of name, rank, and serial number detail [Because it sounds way better if it’s secret knowledge], that the issue of Lyn’s firewall proposal is being intensively studied and debated in Washington, D.C. on Capitol Hill,  against an enormous counterorganizing effort….[Wow! What else is new?]  (*2)

*In Illinois, we got … two initial sponsors on the HBPA, as the Illinois legislature is also in emergency session, over the fact that they can’t get a budget together. And those two sponsors–in the context of the Mark Fairchild’s highly successful statewide tour, and then his direct intervention in Springfield with the press conference at the State Capitol, delivering a 20-year-long “I told you so” from Lyn…(*3).[Can you imagine anything more impotent?]

2. Monday briefing, Nov. 5

LPAC IS THE LAROUCHE CAMPAIGN FOR THE 2008 PRESIDENCY

It is time to end the insanity of the persistent downward trend in LPAC income at the very moment that Lyn’s political impact is on an upward trend (*4), as never before.[The money’s getting worse and worse.]

Look at what we have already done with the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act (HBPA). This is the only reality being debated, albeit behind closed doors, on Capitol Hill. (*5) [Claptrap.]

If we successfully prevent a bombing of Iran, it will have been solely the result of Lyn’s persistent intervention (*6) against the Children of Satan….(*7) [Balderdash.]

Despite all this, many of our own people have not seized upon this reality, to drive LPAC. Face it: From 1976-2004, Lyn ran for President in every election cycle, and it was the impact
of his Presidential campaigns, despite some internal sabotaging [Boy, Nancy, he’ll never let you forget that—even though you didn’t do a thing], that drove whatever outreach was achieved, and whatever successive boosts in income followed from it…. We almost pulled off
a Kerry victory, through our efforts, in league with Bill Clinton and the Clinton team. [And the Pope, the Dalai Lama, and Amelia Earhart.]

Ostensibly [What does Jeff think ostensibly MEANS?], Lyn is not running for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008, for obvious reasons of age. But that does not mean that we are not {running a massive intervention into the Presidential elections.}

3. Tuesday briefing, Nov. 6

OUR MISSION: CREATE A PRESIDENTIAL CULTURE WORTHY OF LINCOLN AND FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT (*8)

The following is a paraphrase of Lyn’s message to the organization, delivered on Monday night in dialogue with the NEC, the LYM and a group of Chicago organizers who have been tearing
up Ground Zero in Loudoun County for the past weeks.

The organization has been in a crisis for months that must be solved right now. Up through March-April of this year, the organization was based on field deployments with mass-circulation
pamphlets. [What happened in March-April? Anyone remember? It’s on the tip of my tongue—it was—it was—I got it! Ken Kronberg committed suicide and PMR closed down!] That perspective was abandoned and now must be revived. [And strangely enough, from that day forth, the perspective of having literature was abandoned. Shoulda thought of that before, Lyn.]

From the mid-1970s to the present day, the organization’s survival was based on Lyn’s Presidential campaigns. [Just as you always suspected—all those FEC dollars were keeping the darned thing going.] Now, the country is going to hell [unlike all those other times, when we just SAID it was going to hell] and what is needed is a spokesman to articulate what must be done to change course and restore the American System and our tradition. Just because Lyn, for age reasons alone, is not running for President does not change that basic fact. (*9)

Lyn saw that a Bush reelection would mean the destruction of the legacy of the Clinton Presidency, and so we intervened. We succeeded, despite resistance from within the organization [He’s at it again, Nancy], with the deployment of 100 youth to Boston, singing. This changed the course of history and saved the organization. [I can’t top that one….] (*10)

We are going to redo a competent production of the Prologomena(sic). We are going to revive what we were doing through the early Spring of this year [EARLY Spring—that would be before April 11]–mass organizing through an array of mass pamphlets, which give people an idea of what we are doing. [We want our literature back.] Then the Prologomena (sic), which gives the serious people an in-depth idea of our broad strategy for saving the nation and mankind. (*11)

You need a young adult movement to create a maelstrom. Define the wave of the future. That is what gets people of every age bracket truly excited. We must not have a Romantic notion of the youth, or of the tweeners. We know the weaknesses and the neurotic problems. [The youth have neurotic problems? When did that happen? Last I looked, they were marvelous in our eyes.] (*12)

Recognize what we are doing that is right. We have total authority, Lyn has total authority on the economy and the financial collapse. Look at what we are accomplishing around the HBPA, and now, around a renewed interest in capital budgeting. The HBPA firewall is the only thing that can avert total disaster. [If we could only figure out what we meant by “firewall.”]

We have a package of issues. We have nuclear energy, and we are going to politically destroy Al Gore, as part of this drive. [By the way.]

So we are going to shift to a deployment policy that is a shocker. [I’m shocked. I’ve been shocked for years.]

[And another thing….] We must, in this context, destroy Nancy Pelosi. She is the market (sic), the test of politics. She is keeping Dick Cheney in place, and if Cheney, by virtue of Pelosi’s sabotage, gets his Iran war, then more people will die than were killed by Hitler, and she will have that blood on her hands. [Plus she’s a woman….]

…………..

(*1) Larouche has discovered animated gifs? Wow! This innovative use of innovative technological innovation makes me want to get up and dance!

(*2) Hm.  I think the literature has it that the bills that winding through Congress (example) are strung from Felix R.

(*3) (Shrug) http://www.sj-r.com/News/stories/19305.asp

(*4) Yeah, good luck with that one.  I think the idea is to jiggle money out the “Impeach Cheney” tact?

(*5) I think footnote #2 offers the refutation.

(*6) I think this is a reprisal of the old “Labor Committees Avert Nuclear War” tact (following the “One Week to Nuclear War”, etc.)

(*7)  OHMYGOD!  The Children of Satan!  Back again!

(*8) The premise has come into the literature.  On one page you see news that a college professor said the Democrats should emulate FDR — what a concept! — but, for the Larouchian world, starting whenever it was he discovered the genius of FDR, that means emulating Larouche…

(*9) … Likewise, similar lines appear on electing the idea, not the person.  Seeming acknowledgement of the hard sell Larouche would have to fit his round pegs into that campaign of Hillary Clinton.

(*10) Sit back and marvel.

(*11)  Does this end the “Winds of Change” arc?  Really, I never understood how Larouche, Inc. was supposed to pass out their propaganda without those booklets.

(*12) … what with their myspace and facebook and Tron and all that.

In August I posted basically this to a message board — the one I’ve posted to in spurts for the last half a dozen years.  And had this response:

I would also make the observation that paranoid controlling groups like this, when confronted with a crisis which threatens their core beliefs, either blow up and go away, or they seek to rewrite their (internal) history – sometimes even to the point of denying that previous core beliefs were ever actually held. Problem with Larouches crew pulling this off (which they’d probably like to do) is that there are *outsiders* monitoring things, including our own Howie. Therefor, in order for their rewrite to work…

I saw a group of LYMers huddled about on a street corner card table shrine yesterday.  It has been a while since I have seen any, thought that may be more me than them — and undoubtedly they’ve popped in at PSU this school year and last at some point or other.  Probably more importantly, it has been a while since I have seen evidence of them, amounting to mass quantities of their propaganda being laid here and there.  They stood with the “Impeach Cheney” written on their cardboard — a good bet for the passerbyers, thought a little moldy a message.  (It still beats out the Mortgage message?)  I was wondering one thing — if they could be polled on Ken Kronberg, they would have what answer?  Their history with him is what?  Well, they’d probably think I had picked up something from the evil Washington Monthly article, or Who Knows?  a suspicion that I’m that Portland area blogger to know exists.

Elliot (Greenspan) hangs around at card tables outside post offices or DMVs occasionally, where he recently had the effrontery and pathetic out-of-it-ness to tell Ken Kronberg’s cousin to join LaRouche “to honor Ken.” You can imagine how that went over.

I suppose there is no contradiction between the crucification that Larouche gave to Kronberg in that daily memo  (you know the one), and reportedly in many other forums, and the “To Honor Ken” model.  But, about that memo… according to the Larouchie denziens working to affect the wikipedia pages, it is …

The statement about suicide is clearly hyperbole in the “briefing,” not intended to be taken literally. Benton is treating it as if it were a literal recommendation. “Malicious” seems to be the right word for this. —NathanDW 16:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking people at their word can’t be called a malicious interpretation. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly just a coincidence, though even the word “jumped” is apparently at issue with them, who prefer the word “fell”.
I encourage those former cadres who are worried about irrelevence to consider how many people have absorbed important discoveries from he writings but still wanted to keep as far away from the movement as possible because of LaRouche’s (let’s be kind) ideosyncracies in leadership style.

The “ideosyncracies in leadership style”, and all that.

Molly, I am sorry for your loss. I don’t know the circumstances of Ken’s death, nor do I know what Lyn is like behind closed doors. Perhaps he is a difficult person. Those of great intellectual insight are such, notoriously. But I know the man as one can know a figure through his public work, and I have been immeasurably enriched thereby. And, in spite of everything, I will be bold enough to recommend that to you, even in your grief.

I have heard, and seen evidence here and there from various briefings, that Jeff Steinberg’s intentions for a post-Larouchian world include the notion of attempting to bring together old members who floated away due to Larouche’s abuses — er “ideosyncracies”, which I suppose means some sort of intellectual parlor game of separating the man’s “ideas” and some vaguely anti-entropy man versus beast ideology and… the man.  Should I expect a Kruschev speech blasting away at Stalin?  Steve and res republica have, either for his benefit or for the attempted benefit of winning in “those ex-members”, already made that intellectual jump.

Helga Zepp, I hear and seen in one or two writings, has worked to smooth relations with the European org.  As with the baby-boomers, the contradiction with Larouche in terms of this:

We cleaned the mess up in Europe by getting rid of the people who wanted to be gotten rid of. They were going anyway. They’d been gone for a long time, they were actually working for enemy agencies, or under the influence of enemy agencies, so we didn’t lose anything in Europe, we just simply acknowledged the fact that they were already long gone and lost. That happens. The enemy had taken them over.

But cross-purposes have to be worked with for multitude of goals.  You have the future to think about.

Back to the wikipedia page, it occurs to me that a simple answer has been provided in terms of the Larouchie charge on the Washington Monthly article.  If you go to the Ken Kronberg page, you will note that Larouche’s published rebuttal and challenge to that article from this past summer has been provided.  You know… Avi Klein = Mossad Agent, the article is a piece to destroy the Hillary Clinton presidential push and part of the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”.  So you see, both sides of the story have been provided.  It’s just that one side of the story is completely bonkers.

I wonder if Kevin Sheppard truly recognizes the significance of the comments beneath his “American Prospect” post. In one manner of speaking, this is a story of utmost significance to a relative handful of people, of interest to a handful more, of curiosity to still more (and, watching the political magazines’ websites note the thing, I note that the Reason blog has finally picked up the Washington Monthly article), and nothing to many more. For a brief spell I was actually a bit panicky about the prospect of attention due to my strange following of this story before it picked up a bit more attention. (Type “Ken Kronberg” into google and see what it gets me.) I never really had to worry about that, in hindsight — the man Larouche is nobody of any real significance.

I note that “Steve” appeared on this blog in February, just after I completed my odd series of posts about Larouche. He provided that “light bulb” analogy for how he feels with his indoctrination into the wonder world of Larouche. I suppose I may just say this is not a terribly original insight into the creative process — um, yes?, and in terms of Lyndon Larouche falls into a dangerous gnostic realm, an incubation into culthood, together with the phrase that he left me with last February “DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAN AND ANIMALS?” — which, ends up with this elitist pose where the decision on who is acting like man and who is acting like animals gets to be determined by … um? (And onto the conspiracies, where you are fighting the powers that be who are not so much guided by human forces of greed and power-lust but… an interest in Bestializing the Public? It is a question that clarifies the cult leader’s proported ideology, so… thanks to Steve, back in February.)

One of those “light bulb” moments. But I then had another, more significant “light bulb” moment in pursuing some of his work, just as Steve did — whilel looking through one of his more slap-dashed pamphlets; ie: a transcript of one of his “World Historic Internet Broadcasts” with a few not terribly coherent articles. I picked it up literally from out of a gutter and had it lying around for a rainy day in March — a month I had declared a Moratorium on the topic of Larouche for this blog because I was sick of him and was sick of entertaining a couple of Larouchie commenters here. My light-bulb insight into the words that I was reading, as I realized the implication of his and his youngest flock’s words of denigration on the Baby Boomers admist the surreal trumpeting of the “Youth Movement”: “Something horrible is about to happen in that organization.” When something did, I found myself somewhat stuck. Hence, making it a point to float something at least once a week, and at particular points in time — an obnoxiously larger number of times. (revinire’s appearance was a bit annoying in that he forced me to jump the gun here, when I knew that I would shortly have this topic dominating this blog for a spell — something which I always am a little bit apprehensive with.) So, with my premonition from reading his words and then seeing that premonition take place, I can look at this Steve comment:

I’ll close with a capsule summary of one of Lyn’s most profound and oft maligned works – “Beyond Psychoanalysis”. It is, unfortunately, written in a dense style, but it is intelligible if one works at it.

and suggest this entire thing is one sick joke, that dear cult leader wrote “Beyond Psychoanalysis” with some influence from Fred Newman — they seemed to exchange ideas during their brief tenure together — and there is not much worth saying.

From the message from Bebe, troubled by her sister’s entry into Larouchism:

And I sometimes wonder, from the way she talks about it, maybe they really ARE doing something. Maybe I’m insane for not seeing what is so obvious to her, that LaRouche has got it right. That maybe, as she says, he really is popular in other countries.

But then, all I have to do is try to wade through one of his essays, and I see straight again.

Seems about right. Try to read straight, without forcing it to make it makse sense, and it all makes perfect sense. Of a type. Our dear revinire asked me a simple question about Kronberg’s death, in scoffing the “baby boomer” angle, only one part of the explanation, sure…: “WHY?” — and after all this time I come to an interesting observation: At bottom, Beats the Hell out of me. Why should I explain the crockery of dearest Lyn? “What?” is another of the question, and “what?” gets you to a plenty horrific answer with many things involved herein.

I had some difficulty recently explaining my involvement with this to somebody in the real world in saying that I was kind of sort but not really in the next issue of the Washington Monthly (though, not much) because Now, this has nothing to do with me at all (a position by-product of the college newspaper reporter trying to find an ex-member and thinking he was me, which forced me to that sidebar statement “I am not nor have ever been involved…”) but… um… I… um… am helping destroy a facist cult (wrong terminology for my purposes) and… I realized I would have to email an explanation to better express myself.) Am I? I don’t know. Something probably will exist for the indeterminable future, I’m guessing. All I know is that they’re telling Dead Larouche jokes in one of the regionals, reshuffling is taking place and the LYM are about to be be required to earn their money, and the Larouche version of the Ken Kronberg saga has been absorbed into the official history — and the wikipedia “talk” page on Ken Kronberg is plenty interesting,

We’re on a fast track to something hereabouts, and I had always thought there about three shoes ready to drop.  One has dropped, I await the other two.  In the meantime, I floated about and noticed a cutesy bit of writing, as I scanned down their latest offerings, with the dateline of LPAC to the late 18th century… don’t quote me on that, because I was distracted by something more amusing on the sidebar.  “The FACTS on Duggan”.  Hovering right next to it was the recent article about how Nancy Pelosi is an asset, or in the same blood-stream, as Joseph Kennedy.  I’m not sure this is a good juxtaposition for them if they want to spell out their spin on Jeremiah Duggan, but I don’t know how something like that can be avoided.  (And wherefor are their Kronberg Facts?  Coming any day now, I suppose.)

FACTNet is back up, and somewhere amongst there I find this bit:

There’s some distress in the org over Molly Kronberg’s interview with Chip Berlet, along the lines of “How could she?”

No kidding.  Probably moreso than I can really comprehend.  By way of an answer, one can look to the the second part of the exchange between “res republica” and Molly Kronberg.

res republica:  Marielle, I respect your perspective. However, I would never have discovered List and Carey, or appreciated the genius of Benjamin Franklin without the work done by the best of the writers Ken published over the years: Spannaus, Chaiken, Salisbury. Or alumni like Robert Dreyfus. LaRouche, on the other hand, always needed a good editor, although I’m sure the problem is he would never permit it. IMO he hasn’t written much that’s new and interesting since Dialectical Economics. On coherence. If the ideas are not coherent, why I am able to guess LaRouche’s reaction to world events (whether I agree or not) before I open up the website or see the street sign. From its own points of reference, it holds together as a way of thinking. My real point is that people who feel that they wasted their time are over-estimating the value of much of what we “normal” working folks have done over the last 15 years. Apart from creating islands of sanity and joy in our families, friends and local communities, not much (at least for me, except I keep hacking away). Enjoy your freedom and the rest of your life without looking back with regret.

Marielle Kronberg:  I’m not likely to “enjoy my freedom and the rest of my life without looking back with regret,” since my greatly loved husband, the most important person on the planet to me, along with my son, was driven to suicide by LaRouche.

As for Spannaus, Chaitkin, etc.–if you want to read something decent published by a LaRouchie, read Ken’s stuff.

And as for being “free” of LaRouche–I’ve been free of him for decades.

Ken’s death didn’t give me any kind of freedom, it made my distaste for and disapproval of LaRouche into something far more visceral.

Which has a way of putting this comment in perspective:

What a shame that the LaRouche cult is being hounded in the man’s twilight years. One supposes he’ll be quickly forgotten when he snuffs it.

Which I take as a sort of “He brought us laughs with that ‘Queen of England'” thought on the value of Larouche as a curiosity.   A criminal enterprise that throws out kooky tangeants is still a criminal enterprise.  In other news:

LaRouche supporters distributed literature outside the Ciccone Theater, where the debate was held, saying the attacks on Johnson amounted to a “public lynching.” A man and a woman were escorted from the theater after accusing the forum’s moderator, Record editorial page editor Alfred P. Doblin, of bias for writing a column that took Johnson to task for contributing to LaRouche.

Later, a woman was ejected after she accused the forum’s sponsors — The Record and the League of Women Voters of Bergen County — of acting like a “lynch mob” for allowing a question about Johnson’s ties to LaRouche.

When order was restored, Johnson said he was initially intrigued by LaRouche’s allegations of “corruption in the pro-war actions of the Bush administration.”

“I now see that supporting this individual has hurt a lot of people, so I apologize for that,” he said. “And I ask people to look at my record, look at my character, look at my reputation. After that, I’m moving on.”

One of Johnson’s Republican challengers, Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz, said he was “surprised at Johnson’s lack of judgment,” adding he was stunned that Johnson, an Army Reserve officer and former Englewood police officer, “just allowed everything to pile up and blow up in his face.”

I gather that Johnson would … just as soon that the Larouchies… disappear.  He’s having a hard enough time as it is.  In other contortions of this news item, Eliot Greenspan offers his piece.  (Memo to self:  google ‘Eliot Greenspan’.)

I am scouring through comments, and for instance
Not enough in the article about how LaRouche wormed his way into Reagan’s NSC during the first term with info from his personal contacts in foreign countries. Until the media started reporting the NSC’s interest and exposing LaRouche’s record he was quite welcome by the Reaganites.

This Probably because the article wasn’t about that at all, and was not set to scratch anyone’s particular political itch. Anyway, Dennis King already covered that, and … well, the rest of that comment is highly entertaining, as is a bulk of these “I remember” comments. Here is the first level of interest for this article: the cockeyed look at a peculiar sub-culture that has been extent for the past few decades, off of anyone’s line of vision, as it approaches what appears to be its second death-bed. (Remember my “Zombie” theory… or, I can suggest it’s a series of half-lifing aways.)

Then there’s this position:

Who knew we needed reconfirmation that the LaRouchies are crazy? What’s next? The Monthly blows the lid off the Prohibitionist Party?

I’m all for that, actually. The Prohibitionist Party — the tiniest of political parties but plenty old — split into two at their 2004 convention, held in the kitchen of the long-time party leader, because the others had come to the conclusion that he was mostly running a political parephenilia business under the umbrella of the political party. Anyway, as ugly as that split was, nobody died. And whatever else the Prohobitionist Party is, it is not a cult, nor the most visible cult on college campuses, ensnaring ultimately a mere handful — but a handful too many.
You know, on second inspection, this comment is more pernicuous than my first scan of it.

The Washington Monthly article is an interesting piece of journalism that sheds real light on a truly disturbing event: the death of Ken Kronberg. Unfortunately both Kate’s post and Avi’s article suffer from the usual problems with LaRouche critics: (i) over-reliance on emotive words like “crazy” and “cult” which don’t describe much except to advertise the writer’s status in the respectible anti-LaRouche crowd (ii) and mischaracterization of the ideas of the LaRouche movement. The key test I use to judge the level of mischaracterization is to ask the question: could I gain any understanding of what the movement’s ideas are solely by reading the article? The answer for Avi’s piece is “no.” Although I have never been a member of the movement, I have read LaRouche’s publications over a long period of time. My verdict is that the movement represents a coherent set of ideas. These ideas are not beyond of criticism, but charge of impenetrability is an empty one. If you read the movement’s writings with an open mind and a critical eye, in the aggregate the basic points will be clear and you will end up learning much of value. Sometimes I think that those who like to present the ideas themselves as “crazy” use that term as a device to convince intelligent fair-minded people not to bother reading the movement’s writings. At the same time, LaRouche’s personal behavior and often rhetorical style makes the critics’ mischaracterizations an easier sell. That may be the true crime. Just because Lyndon LaRouche made some unique discoveries in method (intersection of economics, mathematics and technological development)does not necessarily qualify him to lead a movement to put those ideas into practice. I encourage those former cadres who are worried about irrelevence to consider how many people have absorbed important discoveries from he writings but still wanted to keep as far away from the movement as possible because of LaRouche’s (let’s be kind) ideosyncracies in leadership style. But I would also urge them to stay active politically and bring the best of those ideas into the deliberations of mainstream political organizations that could benefit from them.

Maybe I can leave it at Marielle Kronberg‘s response, but I won’t.

Speaking as Ken Kronberg’s widow, and a LaRouche “insider” from 1973 till earlier this year–when Ken died–res publica is kidding himself/herself about LaRouche’s relevance and the quality of his discoveries and the coherence of his worldview.

I was in the organization, I knew the players, I was on the National Committee from 1982 till, I guess, now–and coherence was never a characteristic, nor did LaRouche make any significant discoveries–economic, philosophical, ontological, or otherwise.

That’s what I thought was so on the mark about Avi Klein’s article: It didn’t get sidetracked onto politics or policies, which makes sense, because LaRouche has neither.

Res Republica provides a response to this, but I do have a general sense of “Who cares?” about me. So, we have someone who has “never been a member of the movement” (And why not? The movement needs some soldiers right now, goshdarnedit!) suggesting that this is an “interesting piece of journalism that shed real light on a truly disturbing event” by someone who has ingratiated himself into the “respectable anti-Larouche crowd” with highly emotive phrases (“cult”) that avoid the real issues in hand with Larouche’s marvelous ideas — and here’s the kicker: LaRouche’s personal behavior and often rhetorical style makes the critics’ mischaracterizations an easier sell. That may be the true crime. That may be the true crime! THAT! As opposed to, you know… what was the first sentence, on what this article’s positive points: sheds real light on a truly disturbing event.

Oh well. It’s all awash in the end. I have made minor effects here and abouts, and it is evident: For instance: the image that the Washington Monthly uses for its blog entry was from the youtube video which they nabbed from Scott McLemee (sp?) who lifted it from me. This is the power of Infinitisimals, and it’s kind of goofy.

It appears that FACTNet hasn’t paid the bills.  All very disappointing, having thought they had pushed their way past their financial crisis of a few months ago, and knowing this is probably the most interesting moment for discussion on the topic of L’Affaire Larouche.  (FACTNet, in the eyes of Larouche, Inc., a product of the American Family Association.)

Anyway, the posts (hopefully temporarily unavailable), all I can say is that Scott McLemee beat me to the punch in one observation:

Some ex-members think his recent proclamations are touched with senility, as opposed to the more cogent expressions of bizarre thought they were accustomed to hearing back in the old days.

I had my own formulation in mind, but not having access to the source material to make the comment with, I will just have to say my bit of snark lines up with that one.   At any rate, Larouche has come to claim Pelosi as being controlled by the Kennedy-cabal, which means Joe Kennedy, and by dent a sort of Republican – Democratic duoply is existing with Schwarzenager married to a Kennedy.  Odder than the hard to follow throughlines — John Kennedy is occasionally celebrated by Larouche — he built the space-program and thus there is one of those big shiny things that follow to the throughline of the MegLev Bridge — or whatever else it is you want.  Can John Kennedy escape those bloodlines, even if assasinated?

As for The write-up on the Washington Monthly mainpage,  the line that and it won’t provide you with any red meat attacks on either Democrats or Republicans — Well, it did inspire one, of sorts — ala a tossed reference to “Independent Democrat” by way of a snarky comment against Joseph Lieberman.  Hm.  I can point to this stupid bit of politicsal exchange with my recent Larouche cult poster:

Me:  Speaking of Al Gore’s vice president selection: I did not much appreciate what the Larouchites did to help defeat Ned Lamont and re-elect Joseph Lieberman in the last election, acting like yahoos and thus giving Lieberman that smug answer to the question of “Who are those guys” “Oh, just some Ned Lamont supporters!” A net gain for Lieberman, albeit an “infinitisimal” one.

He:  Your analysis of the Lieberman race? Hmm. Sorry Justin you can write up this stuff but shucks we just don’t see eye to eye. I think Lamont blew it himself and Lieberman… well, gosh don’t call me an anti-Semite, or a Nazi, for saying this but Joe has Semite blood on his hands.

Me: My analysis of the Lieberman race? Um. You seem to think I’m giving Larouche a whole lot more credit than I just did.

Me:  (Witness your mis-read on my comment on the Larouchies helping out the neo-con agenda visa vie Ned Lamont, who the “3-4 folks” who frequent the category on Larouche have no concern regarding.)

He:  LaRouche helped the neo-cons, yeah and I ate a piece of steel today — like Matter-Eater Lad.

… All of which took up more space here than it is worth, for a minor point that could have been made with the similar observation that the Washington Monthly article includes a glowing recommendation in the ad-box from James Carville, and in the Larouche-universe the Clintons (including Carville) and he are oh-so-close and in battle with the Felix Rhoyatin elements of the Democratic Party (now, apparently, the Joe Kennedy lead elements of the party).

Okay.  Moving on: Controversy grips Northern New Jersey.  Methinks the problem doesn’t stop at “past history of anti-semitism” with the donations.  Anyway, that guy’s political career is done.

…………

Update:  Comments will be interesting to read with this article, and here “res republica” tries to convince himself of Larouche’s relevancy.