I had forgotten about this election I was only mildly following and made a blog post regarding — for a Kentucky state Senate special election race.

Um. Belated congratulations to Democratic victor Perry Clark. Final total, for an election held in February:

Debbie PEDEN REP 5802
Perry CLARK DEM 6757

I really don’t look at the literature that the LaRouchites try to give me or I see scattered about town, and believe me when I say that I give them less thought than it may seem I do on this blog, but I know that there’s often a list of elected, quote-in-quote “Democratic leaders” in support of the cult-leader.

Perry Clark, being that he has moved up from a state House member to a state Senate member, will probably rise up that list. Though he’s probably not up to Erik Fleming status (currently running to unseat Trent Lott) quite yet.

Sigh. Ah well. The LaRouche engine has more weight in Australian elections, and in the NCC, than they do in American elections, and the Democratic Party. Here, they’re a weird little gnat. There… well…

A comment left awhile ago:

You can read a more up to date account of the LaRouchees’ infiltration of the NCC (as of last January) here:

The LaRouchees are incredibly ubiquitous in Oz.

I will move this link from the February sidebar archives over here, because I have had … NOTHING… on Lyndon LaRouche… as of late.

Economics = Science of the Mind
Doubling the Square = Purification Rundown
LaRouche = LRH
Baby Boomers = engrams and Black Thetan Goals
Republicans = Suppressive persons
Cheney = Xenu
British Monarchy = Marcab Confederacy
Schiller Institute = Office of Special Affairs
USA = MEST
Benjamin Franklin = Jack Parsons
Plato = Freud
acapella singing on college campuses = SeaOrg
Socratic method = electropsychometer auditing
mind control = mind control
Executive Information Review = Freedom Magazine
Colonize Mars and build Eurasian Landbridge = transcend time and space as OT
Directed Energy Beam to destroy AIDS sufferers = “curing” homosexuality via Dianetics
Helga-Zepp LaRouche = a robot decked out as a beautiful red-haired girl

Linking current material from the blogosphere, This guy more or less had me until he cited John Kerry as a “far left candidate”. His history is skewed on the matter at hand. I don’t think you can call his followers a member of anything, excepting that they skim what they can from the edges of any “Movement” he aligns himself with.

The fight for the wikipedia continues apace: It seems to me that you are making too much out of the American System inclusion because you are on a crusade to silence anything you THINK is related to Lyndon LaRouche. Just because LaRouche supports the American System or a style of it; does not mean he is its inventor; that he is the only one supporting similar policies (protective tariffs, productive investments by the FED)…in fact numerous persons are supporting this system of economics also called ‘national’ and ‘protective’…including Batra, Dobbs, Buchanan, many members of the US Democratic Party in various ways…Mr. LaRouche was opposed to Judge Alito, and by your reasoning, any inclusion of opposition to Alito would be a LaRouche idea, since he supports that idea..It is a fallacy to attribute the support of the American System only to him; but this is a debate already gone over numerous times with you and you continue to bring it up again and again, in a fanatic attempt to silence views you don’t understand by calling them names or linking them to other persons you oppose politically. I have stated that my edits are sourced and I have provided those sources in numerous instances when you have asked for them. I have tried to work with you civilly – tried to work out disputes between yourself and others and sided with you when you were right – yet you continue to badger me to no end; always in violation of assuming good faith. My inclusions are never without merit; although I am an imperfect human and therefore am bound to make mistakes (like at the US Constitution article); and when I do I move on and admit it. I have answered you on every point of contention here at this article – tried to do a sandbox which you rejected at first only accepting it after I spent the time re-working the article to be more accurate; these types of behaviors are wrong.

STOP. Work with me and not against me. If you wish to challenge my edits, then do so with good faith by asking me here in talk before simple reversion. We have enough history, that you should know that I am more than willing to collaborate with other editors and to change my edits when they need to be changed or where I have made mistakes. I simply do not like being labeled, followed, and put before a ‘court of inquisition’ on every edit I make. I don’t mind your questions, I mind your methods.

But LaRouche invented the Wikipedia anyway, so who are these non-LaRouchites to dictate terms? (One of the more bizarre claims he has made is that… he founded wikipedia. I do not understand that.)

Iranian State Radio interviews “One of Cheney’s Arch – Enemies”, Lyndon LaRouche.

Um. Okay. Is there a suitable fringe figure of similar stature in that region that can interviewed with a straight face as though he is an authority?

Oh wait! I know who’s not taken seriously around those parts that can be interviewed over and over again in America media! Maybe?

BLITZER: On this third anniversary of the war, as you know, a lot of your critics say that you were very much responsible for convincing the so-called neoconservatives in the Bush administration to launch this war three years ago, based on faulty intelligence that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I want to give you a chance to respond to that criticism, which you hear all the time, as you well know, coming forward. Specifically, your role in convincing the Bush administration to launch this war against Saddam Hussein.

CHALABI: Well, I entered Iraq in January of 2003 on foot. Then we went to Nasiriyah with the help of the U.S. Air Force, from Kurdistan, and we were then moved to Baghdad.

He walked into Iraq by foot, and then was flown down into Southern Iraq to be around there for the convenient statue dropping. Got that? One of those bugs that hasn’t been put to sleep yet. No follow-up question for that one about his role in policy formation.

You will remember that the topic of presidential endorsements came up in the 2004 US Senate race from Oklahoma between Tom Coburn and Brad Carson. Tom Coburn was repeatedly asked, particularly outside of Oklahoma, about his 2000 endorsement for Alan Keyes. Tom Coburn was oblivious to any implication of what endorsing Alan Keyes says about the endorser of Alan Keyes — which is to say he never seemed aware that he was being insulted — and Coburn gave a spiel about how Republicans endorse different candidates, and rally behind the eventual nominee. As it turned out, Oklahoma wanted a white Alan Keyes over a Democrat who’d skew as close to the “Center” as possible, and thus… Coburn won by a larger margin than the generally thought-to-be-non-race in Pennsylvania: greater than 12%.

Flash forward to 2006, and there’s a special election being held to round out the Kentucky state Senate. And here’s the Democrat:

Mr. Clark, on the other hand, has made himself a marginal figure by following his libertarian beliefs all the way out to the fringe. For example, in the name of liberty, he was one of only three House members to vote in favor of allowing 14-year-old girls to marry. He was the featured speaker for a militia group a few years ago. He has been an outspoken supporter of the perennial and controversial presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche.

Libertarians hate it when anyone connects Lyndon LaRouche to their cause, and frankly they have every right to be aggrieved: LaRouche is a statist, like it or not. But I have to wonder about Clark’s political judgement:

Clark, a Democrat, said he’s not a political eccentric as a Peden advertisement suggests, although he acknowledges he is a supporter of fringe presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche, who once reportedly claimed that the Sept. 11 attacks were carried out by “some kind of rogue operation inside the security screen of the United States.” Clark acknowledges that some of his votes may seem “oddball” at first blush. But he added, “When you really think about them, they really aren’t too far out of the mainstream.”

How does Clark explain himself? Thusly:

Clark endorsed LaRouche in 2004 for his economic policies and position on extracting U.S. troops from Iraq “quickly.”

While I suppose one can sympathize with the plight of where to throw your vote if you want to high-tail us out of Iraq (remember that Dean held the position that we need to stay), I have to wonder which economic policies he was championing. But maybe I haven’t really read the pamphlets too deeply — something about FDR and Truman being a right-wing idiot. Actually, there was this semi-famous incident in the 2004 Democratic primary where at a Kerry townhouse meeting, someone said to Kerry that he was “deciding between Kerry and LaRouche” and went on about what “new economic framework” Kerry would create… not being up to snuff with the “new economic framework” LaRouche was all set to create. Kerry’s answer was a verbal rolling of the eyes.

As for Clark, it is interesting to note that he isn’t running his campaign with this pattern in mind:

When a LaRouche follower runs for office…their ads often follow this formula:

I’ve heard this many times..it’s so weird that they don’t speak for themselves.

So I guess he’s not wrapped up totally in the cult of LaRouche. At any rate, I guess I’ll bring you up to date on who wins this pivotal Kentucky state Senate race. I know you’re on the edge of your seat, since the balance of the nation is at stake with this election.

… it’s about time I gave a Lyndon LaRouche update.

You do realize there’s a possibility these two blogs are describing the same happenstance?

It was a voice. It was a loud, amplified voice. It echoed off the sides of buildings and down the street. I peered down from my perch and could see a mini-van inching its way through traffic. A large, gray loudspeaker was mounted on its roof. A sign, which I could not read from my vantage point, hung on the door. I could hear the voice clearly up six stories and through sealed windows. The booming voice touted the virtues of Lyndon LaRouche.

Politics aside, this noise pollution, parading as “amplified free speech,” apparently is legal in Washington, D.C. How would our world be if everyone placed a loudspeaker on their car or on their corner? And what about the free speech rights of those who cannot afford an amplified loudspeaker?

Compare that description with this other description of LaRouchite outside a building with a bullhorn.

Also there’s a Lyndon LaRouche supporter in a minivan circling our office’s block with a mounted loudspeaker, encouraging all the powerless drones in these buildings to “Filibuster Alito”. Which, incidentally, should be an Italian Sandwich shop franchise name.

Both are in Washington, DC. So do we have two bloggers peering out their window at the same LaRouche supporter with a loudspeaker? I think we do!

Well, let’s see. First we get this call to action…

… and in that shadow, and at the very same blog, you have: this news. Which wouldn’t bode well for the breaking-line-point of throwing the Democratic Party ashunder over Samuel Alito, and the seemingly coerced-into-existence “conventional wisdom” that his confirmation was and always will be a fait accompli.

Well, I note this, for what it is worth:

The continued existence of the United States as a republic may depend upon the defeat of the nomination of Federalist Society member Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue is Hitler!

Not that I want Harry Reid to use those words or anybody in either party to sound off much of the concerns of Lyndon LaRouche (um. No. The issue is not, quote-in-quote, “Hitler”, but some issues that are bad nonetheless), but there is a story of how nature abhors a vacuum.

Sigh.

Sometime during the 2004 election, I had this joke. “Where did he stand on the Kitten Extermination Act?”

Perhaps I’d preface the Kitten Extermination Act as coming from Bill Frist, who… once upon a time… actually… did… kill kittens. (No. Really. You can look it up. Google it. Bill Frist: Cat Killer.)

I’m surprised by this charge, at the end of this article.:

LAROUCHE GETTING WHAT HE DESERVES
Chicago Tribune
January 30, 1989
Author: Mike Royko.

But I hope that this column finds its way to his fellow inmates. They should know that they have a cat-killer in their midst. And I hope any cat-lovers among them do whatever they feel is appropriate.

I will reconstruct the story of LaRouche’s AIDS initiative in the mid-1980s (on the way to Fidel Castro’s program). But I just had to say: Cat killers? Really?

I send you back to the 2004 Washington Post piece, which if you have a few minutes you may want to read (or re-read as the case may be). But I will dwell on one small segment, the “Doubling of the Square” that LaRouchites apparently contemplate when they first attend a “LaRouche Cadre School” as to learn how to “think outside the box”.

LaRouche is preparing them to wage a new American revolution, Matthew Ogden, 21, says. He was a music student, studying bassoon at Indiana University, when planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Now, like Rouillard, he spends much of his time trying to persuade other young people to escape “the whatever generation, the culture of dullness” and become “historic individuals.”

Youth movement members attend LaRouche-sponsored classes where they learn how great figures of history such as Benjamin Franklin are similar to LaRouche. “You understand how they were operating in history and, even though they are dead, now you are actually carrying on their mission,” Ogden explains.

And they learn … um… mathematics? (Or supposedly relevant to LaRouchism Socratic dialouges.)

LaRouche, he says, challenges young people to ask the most important question: What is truth? “LaRouche and the youth movement have discovered a method where you can discover truth,” Hamler says.

“That’s what the baby boomers are, screwed,” Hamler says.

Well, they at least know that doubling the sides of a square is quadrapling the area of the square, and that to produce a square with a measurement double the measurement of said square, the formula for the sides of the square are sqrt(2n) where n is the measurement of the side of the square. I apologize the square root of two has an infinite number of decimals (and that is the box that the LaRouchites have dug for themselves in not accepting such a thing), but for any practical purpose you round off after 2 decimal points, or for more advanced work, 5 decimal points… anything beyond that is just kind of gratuitous.

How that is supposed to bring me enlightenment or how this is supposed to blow my mind, I do not know. But now that I have let everybody in on the secret of “doubling squares”, there no longer is a need for anyone to attend the LaRouche cadre schools or to join the LaRouche Youth Movement.
…………………

slight update: Wow. Look who was interviewed on the “LaRouche Show”.

I’m talking, of course, about Lyndon LaRouche. And we’ll be joined later by a panel of LaRouche Youth Movement members who participated in the project with Mr. LaRouche: We’ll have on with us today, Cody Jones, Jason Ross, and Riana St. Classis.

So, we’ll begin by welcoming to The LaRouche Show, Lyndon LaRouche. How are you today, Lyn?

Uh. Huh. Lyndon LaRouche interviewed on the LaRouche Show, followed by a panel of the LaRouche Youth Movement. And perahps a musical interlude from the Lyndon LaRouche All-Star Band?

Okay, as we slowly wind up the 2005 and look back, here is the Lyndon LaRouche-related Congressional Story of the year… from “Roll Call”, here is new of an actual email that was sent by a staff member of Representative Jane Harman (D California) to everyone:

sent out an e-mail one day claiming that a Lyndon LaRouche follower walked into Harman’s office and caused a big stink. The e-mail, which was forwarded to HOH, said: “One of these stinkers just took a dump in our office. Midway through his propaganda, Stephen McLaughlin (I found out his name because he was taken away by Capitol Police) decided to drop his pants and plopped a Hot Cleveland Steamer on our carpet. House Janitorial Services is currently cleaning up this wretched filth.” (Needless to say, the e-mail was a hoax, and the young lad was reprimanded.)

Okay, just to be clear: so a Lyndon LaRouche follower did not take a dump on the floor of Jane Harman’s office.

Who the heck is Stephen McLaughlin? A friend of the staffer?

Sooner or later (I likely will be able to toss up tidbits, but may lak the gumption for the entire article until the next calendar year), I’ll post what is sort of the master article on Lyndon LaRouche, published in the New York Times on October 7, 1979.  The “tid-bits” I’m sort of promising provide us with some things that echo some experiences found in, of all places, an anonymous PSU student quoted in the Portland State University Vanguard newspaper article from a year and a half ago. The New York Times article is famous in the lore of LaRouche literature as being the “LaRouche is a Bad Man, but We Can’t Tell You Why” hit-piece. (No, I have not spent a heckofalotof time reading his literature, but if you skim around, this sticks out and sticks out well.)

In the meantime, sit back and enjoy an amusing enough example of electoral politics circa 1983, through the eyes of the local New York Times editorial page:

May 2, 1983 “More Than Just A Local School Fight”

New York City’s local school board elections are usually local, important to parents in the district and few others. But tomorrow’s election in the Sixth District, on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, holds wider interest. A group calling itself the National Democratic Policy Committee has entered a slate of nine candidates interested in fighting about such local educational issues as “British intelligence and the Israeli Mafia” and the International Money Fund. They hint that city officials are guilty of heinous offenses against law and decency. The election of any members of this group would be a heavy blow to the school district.

The group has no connection with the Democratic Party. It advertises its connection with Lyndon LaRouche. Mr. LaRouche has run for a number of important offices and backed candidates for others. The ostensible program of his organization is to stimulate worldwide economic development through the harnessing of nuclear fusion. His literature, however, devotes far more space to attacks on British bankers, to support for anti-Zionism in a form that is hard to distinguish from anti-Semitism, and to an authoritarian program to counter all conspiracies and perversions.

Residents of District 6 who are either enrolled voters or parents with children in any of the district schools would be wise to select their preferred candidates from among those who are not endorsed by the “National Democratic Policy Committee.” To elect any of its candidates would reward intolerance, and indifference to education.
…………………

May 22, 1983
Well-Schooled Voters

Nine members of the so-called National Democratic Policy Committee, an organization inspired and led by Lyndon LaRouche Jr., entered the New York school board election in District 6, covering Inwood, Washington Heights and upper Harlem. The threat of their candidacies helped bring 14,000 voters to the polls, 6,000 more than three years ago. Not one of the group was elected.

The LaRouche-affiliated candidates complained about inadequacies of the schools and attacked public officials with harsh personal innuendoes. They also warned of the alleged threat of British and Israeli intelligence agents, a standard LaRouche issue. It was impossible to read such broadsides withoug reeling that “anti-British” bias masked ant-Semitism.

Thanks to local organizations, unions and Councilman Stanley Michels, the anti-LaROuche forces were able to rout their opponents. The big turnout, noted also in other districts facing controversy, was in itself encouraging; it may indicate a reversal of the declining interest in school board elections since 1970.
…………………..