I note this comment from my last post on yesterday’s Doc Hastings-related post.
Hey, post more LaRouche stuff. The rest of these posts suck.

I intend on continuing to work both the Lyndon LaRouche beat and the Doc Hastings beat, as well as various other matters that stir my interest. I did have a Lyndon LaRouche-related post two days ago, ie: regarding the use of LaRouche as a political smear. Occasionally I see an opening for LaRouche related stuff that I don’t get around to posting — I had some musings over some wikipedia back-log talking that I never got around to posting on. But, I tend to want to provide for people what they ask for me… so being for the benefit of Mr. Kite (or for the commenter found at the email address “cutoffdickcheney@yahoo.com”, an email address that possibly suggests — given LaRouche’s proclivity to skip Bush and go straight to Cheney in his political attacks, maybe a LaRouche supporter)… I bring some stuff from September 17, 2005 from the Australian:

Christensen admires how Santamaria crafted the NCC into the powerful political force that helped keep the Menzies coalition government in power for so long, while also curtailing communist influence in the trade union movement. Says Christensen, a Queensland Nationals executive member: “I believe in Judeo-Christian ethics and family values. That’s why I’m strongly attracted to core NCC principles.”

The NCC has combined faith in the basic tenets of social conservatism with intellectual rigour, impressive organisational skills and close ties with the Catholic Church to give itself serious political clout.

The problem, for this political party that has helped give the Howard Administration a majority?

Christensen outlined his concerns in a letter in April to NCC Queensland president Ross Howard about alleged ties between the NCC and the Citizens Electoral Council. The CEC is an extreme right-wing political party that operates as the Australian arm of an international organisation controlled by a convicted American fraudster and prominent anti-Semite, Lyndon LaRouche.

The CEC has adopted as its economics guru Lance Endersbee, a retired university professor and engineer who was befriended by Santamaria before the NCC founder’s death in 1998. Endersbee gave the keynote address at the CEC’s West Australian launch for the federal election campaign and campaigned for the CEC in Queensland. Endersbee is quoted extensively in LaRouche’s New Citizen newspaper; he was flown by LaRouche to Washington to address a conference in 2003.

So there you go. Lyndon Larouche: he’s HUGE in Australia!

For the life of me, I don’t know what the answer to this question is:

I don’t really understand this. All of a sudden everyone’s all, “Whoa! Can you believe Ramsey Clark is going to defend Saddam? What a scumpuppet!” Yes, he’s an America-hating turd, but I thought I knew that already. […] since December of 2004, in fact.

I’m just wondering why this is news again.

It’s a case of forgetfulness. I remember hearing a right-wing radio show host around December of 2004 shouting out his outrage at Ramsey Clark’s legal (and, frankly, beyond) defense of Saddam Hussein. It didn’t seem terribly relevant to the world at large, but in the end… you have to get outraged at something if you are a political radio show host. Why not Ramsey Clark?

Hammorabi has comments about Saddam’s trial. It’s safe to say that he doesn’t like Ramsey Clark much. Take a number.

Never mind. Just accept Ramsey Clark as a useful strawman (regretably, I cannot come up with the blog at technorati.com that states categorically “This is what all liberals think but do not dare say.”) and an embarrassment, and move on. Embarrassingly enough, there he was… during the run-up to the Iraq War… on… Democracy Now! It’s interesting to look over the programming of Democracy Now… how it bends about when the politics of the time move away or toward it. Example in waiting: just after 9/11, they show excerpts from a war protest of the worst sort. Anarchists, generic drum-beats… and then you have the interview with one of the protesters, rambling on about how the “Peace Movement” and the “Social Justice Movement” are the same thing. They would not show anything like that today. (Actually, for the interest of politico-sociology, for both good and ill.)

Here’s a decent exploration of Ramsey Clark:

Taking that line of reasoning, and stealing and bastardizing a line from Bogie, I’d ask Ramsey Clark, then, of all of the trials in all of the world where a defendant might need your help, why would you choose Saddam Hussein? Certainly, with 3500 Americans on death row and more than half of them with no legal representation whatsoever, Clark’s humble services might be better proffered to one of these hapless, condemned souls.

That Clark, instead, chooses to defend a war criminal already outfitted with literally dozens of lawyers and paid for the by vast fortunes he has squeezed from his victimized population, makes it impossible (at least for me ) to have any tempered view of him. I can only conclude that in helping Saddam, or in gesturing to help him which is more like it, Clark believes he is making some broader political statement about America’s role in the world. It’s a piss-poor platform from which to do that sort of political work. And it is marvelously counter-productive and I would say downright stupid when you have simultaneously positioned yourself as a major figure in an already struggling peace movement. And that’s the trouble with Ramsey. Big trouble.

Not that I believe in a “peace movement”. Upon reflection, I’ve come to the belief that the populace will turn against this or that war completely separate of what any movement does. But I shrug at Ramsey Clark and declare “who’s he going to select to run on the World’s Worker Party for President next time up?”

As for his defense of Lyndon LaRouche:

Things started to smell really fishy in 1989, when Clark represented ultra-right cult-master Lyndon LaRouche and six cohorts on conspiracy and mail fraud charges. The LaRouchies had been bilking their naive followers of their savings by getting them to cough up their credit card numbers. Clark (who had been silent when the real COINTELPRO was conducted under his watch at the Justice Department) now charged that the LaRouche case was an “outgrowth” of COINTELPRO. He said the case was manufactured by LaRouche’s “powerful enemies within the establishment” who targeted the cult because of its crusade “to combat the traffic in so-called ‘recreational drugs’…and the practice of usury.”

In June 1990, a LaRouche front organization, the Schiller Institute, flew Clark to a cult-organized conference in Copenhagen. His speech there claimed the US government had moved against LaRouche because he was “a danger to the system,” and decried that he was a victim of “vilification.” The speech was printed in full by the LaRouchie New Federalist propaganda rag.

Okay. I may as well bump this over from the brief sidebar glance I gave the article, and flesh out a few things.

Here it is: Lyndon LaRouche remarks on the RNC and Ken Mehlman’s reference to him to attack Harry Reid:

“I guess,” LaRouche continued, “the bottom line is this: The Republicans are really hurting after Tuesday’s election losses, and many of them are fearful of my political influence. Some Republicans are terrified of my political capabilities. Especially, now, with the Democratic Party on a winning track, if they stick to what they did in the run-up to Tuesday’s elections.

“There are some Republicans,” LaRouche concluded, “who have been obsessed with me for decades, particularly since they observed, up close, my collaboration with the late President Ronald Reagan, in devising what came to be known as the Strategic Defense Initiative. For some Republicans—and they know who they are; I don’t have to name names—my SDI work with President Reagan has been a point of absolute obsession ever since.”

And thus we have the Lyndon LaRouche take on history, and for that matter history from the vantage point of 2008. I’m not sure “what they [the Democrats] did in the run up to Tuesday’s elections.” Jon Corzine ran a tv commercial that Doug Forrester might have run 3 or 4 years ago (and that realization was pointed out by Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show) with the line “Doug Forrester is George Bush’s Choice. Is He Yours?”. (And Doug Forrester now blames George Bush for his defeat.) Tim Kaine pointed out to a nauseating degree that he was a deeply religious man. (And the punditry immediately claimed this as a defeat for George Bush, because Bush actively campaigned for Kilgore.) I don’t know what to say about Arnold Schwarzeggar. Where Lyndon LaRouche fits into any of these Democratic victories, I do not know.

But he is setting himself up for his 2008 run for President, his Zombie-supporters in hand. 2006 looks to be, one way or another — and at worst by default — a big year for Democrats. LaRouche will take credit, and the readers of “Executive Intelligence Review” will believe that this came about by the grass-roots efforts of those young fellows handing out pamphlets, and then demanding $5 if you happen to take it from their hands.

I want to know who these Republicans are who are obsessed with Lyndon LaRouche. I know that the LaRouche history of events has it that his prison sentence was a political vendetta (I guess for his work with Reagan on SDI?)… is this James Baker and some of those Bush I-istas who float in and out and around and about Bush II’s administration?

Aaaaaaaagh! To think that we had a decent human being and intelligent
thinking human being in Jay Inslee whom we traded in for Doc Hastings
apparently to punish Jay for being the deciding vote on the assault
weapons ban. For the love of God, will someone please run against him? I
mean, someone with some charisma? Please?

Eventually I’m going to compile a profile of the 5 Democratic candidates who have run against Richard “Doc” Hastings in the general election. (A google search of the 1998 candidate shows that my page picks up him as #1, and thus I guess I am the foremost expert on the political career of Gordon Allen Pross… undoubtedly the most obnoxious of the batch of Hastings candidates.) Actually, I think [partisan] political blogs should do that: ie: dig into the political history of their local (or, in my case, I have a connection to the locality) of their political representatives and fill in that vacuum of lack of information.

Jay Inslee factoid of the day: my father voted for Jay Inslee in the 1992 primary for the bizarre reason that his law firm supported local broadcast of PBS’s Mystery. (Inslee is currently the Representative of an area of Washington more conducive to his politics… he was nationally noted in 1998 for winning a race where he explicitly campaigned by making a stand against Bill Clinton’s Impeachment a central issue of his campaign.)

…………..

People are nuts. It’s like these people don’t realize that Larouche is screwed for eternity. Sure, Bush may be insane, but do something WORTHWHILE to remedy the problem, not advocate somebody everyone is shunning!

Great. From my Doc Hastings Watch to my Lyndon LaRouche Watch! Okay… I note a small bit of disjointation with seeing Ann Coulter representing this fellow’s “Worst Right-winger” and LaRouche as his “Worst Left-winger”… I don’t really know how to classify LaRouche, and will point to his hatred of the 1960s as the downfall of American culture as a signage pointing to his rightwing nature.

In case you haven’t noticed, I added this quotation to my the quotes on my sidebar:

“The Beatles had no genuine musical talent, but were a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division specifications.” Lyndon LaRouche, from the pamphlet “Why Your Child Became a Drug Addict”.

There’s a terrible problem with Lyndon LaRouche that does not exist with, say, Jack T. Chick. You can compile a book of the doctrine according to Jack T Chick tracts, or a history of the tracts, and it will be most fascinating. You can not do so with Lyndon LaRouche… his pamphlets, as promising as the titles can be, tend to be terribly uninteresting. As for the Beatles — this attitude has to be at the root of the LaRouche Youth Movement’s tendencies to sing bel canto. It’s an affected elitism that puts the cult members on a higher level than ordinary mortals, you see.

At the same time, this puts LaRouche into the ultra-right wing camp where everything fell apart in the 1960s. AND, curiously enough, it shows LaRouche’s anti-British government bias, who I guess he sees as (still) controlling the world… my first LaRouchite question on this blog, if you go back far enough, was “What does Lyndon LaRouche have against the British Royal Family?”

Still… what can you say? It was The “British INVASION”, was it not?

What’s the point behind Lyndon Larouche? I don’t understand it.

My answer to Falconrath, simple enough:

I don’t understand the question. He was born. He’s crazy. He uses the right memes to attract enough of the politically disaffected to send him money. He operates as a cult.

Right memes to send him money? Take this guy, who has my deepest sympathies:

my brother gave 5K to Lyndon LaRouche

No shit! I just found out today. He’s been brainwashed. At some point during his years at Northern Va Community College he got tuned in by those live at home with parents/bullied in high school/no social life twits on campus. He doesn’t read the newspaper or watch the news, he only gets information from the LaRouche newspaper, and during the fall campaign he made some pretty hefty donations to the cause. I was googling him today and found out, such donations are legally required to be posted. Anybody know any good deprogrammers?

Though, I must say, that is a little harsh to those who live with their parents, were bullied in high school, have no social life on campus, and for that matter those who don’t watch the news. (Actually it’s a good idea not to watch the news — better to read the news… tv news is defacto a joke.)

It occurs to me that these are boom times for the Lyndon LaRouche organization. During the Clinton administration, Lyndon LaRouche was stuck demonizing Alan Greenspan, who one can justifiably criticize — but the basic problem is it’s not a terribly sexy target. Today, he has a full plate of “Children of Satan” to choose from… the Bush Administration, war, and a flunky economy provide him with the restless makings to “fight the power” against.

And the memes? I do not believe that Lyndon LaRouche ever actually came out in support for the election of Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, etc. In fact, quite famously he injected the idea that Dukakis was crazy into mainstream debate, which the George Bush the Better Campaign smiled and nodded when the question was asked by EIR at a press conference. (EIR is “Executive Intelligence Review” — LaRouche’s newspaper.) And he called Walter Mondale a KGB Agent. Thus, with the support of Kerry, he threw himself into that classic corner of liberal and Democratic frustration: “Anybody But Bush”. (And if I had a nickle for every time I’ve seen a right-wing blogger make the statement “What’s the difference between LaRouche’s conspiracy theories and the current Loony Left’s? — the parlor game of figuring out the powers that be are a bit messy, and opportunism strikes for those who want to butt in.)

Next, you muse on the spectacle of LaRouche’s discardinging of the low-brow and silly, in favour of… well, the high-brow and silly. Do any of the LaRouch Youth Squad really understand “Gauss’ theory of squaring the circle”? You play with the idea of giving the student knowledge that they’re not being given due to our current decaying educational standards. Also note the backlash against the corrupting 1960s and the “sex, drugs, and rock and roll” ethos. These are indeed good ways to interject your cult (any cult, mind you) into the mind of a certain vulnerable types of college students.

I don’t understand this. This is not the first time I’ve seen something like this with the wiki feed into bloglines but…

First I’d like to congratulate the folks at wikipedia.org for providing us with an encyclopedic entry on this fascinating topic.

Next I’d like to show you this. Note this attempted revision:

The original image is sufficiently widely known that “killing kittens” has become a fairly common [[euphemism]] for [[masturbation]] in many internet communities and in [[geek]] circles. As exposed recently by America’s top economist and political scientist, Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., he fact that the slogan is popular among “geek” circles, and is called a “meme” by these same geeky twits, speaks volumes about the vapidity of the modern twit culture of kiddies raised on cell phones, cable TV, rave culture, the internet, and hip hop music. Note also that the slogan says “Every time you masturbate…God kills a kitten” rather than “REMEMBER: Every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten.” The omission of “Remember” (as in Smokey The Bear’s famous slogan) is very telling about the psychology of modern kiddies and their fast food junk culture. Sound bites, indeed. Only the LaRouche Youth Movement can save our youngsters from the ravages of popular culture in which garbage like this “kitten” slogan are considered funny while kids know nothing about Gauss’ theory of squaring the circle or why the Romantic composers were a British plot to stamp out the Classical culture of Bach and Mozart and usher in the modern rock-sex-drug counterculture.

What does this mean? Why are Lyndon LaRouche supporters roaming in the background of wikipedia, offering commentary about various topics. (In this case, they look down on the lowbrow nature of the “Every time you masturbate, God Kills a Kitten” image, and snivel about the Youth of America’s ignorance of classic mathematical problems.)

I know that wikipedia is having trouble with LaRouchites, brought on I suppose by Lyndon LaRouche claiming to have invented wikipedia.org. Still, I can’t wrap my head around this

POLITICS FROM THE TWILIGHT ZONE Radical candidates hijack Illinois’ Democratic primary; Richard Stengel. Reported by Lee Griggs/Chicago
Time 03-31-1986

Their campaigns cost a grand total of $200. They made few
speeches, avoided appearing on television, and distributed only a
smattering of pamphlets. They kept quiet about their platform, which
proposes mandatory testing of all Americans for AIDS and ”Nuremberg
tribunals” for those suspected of treason. Although the ballot in
the Illinois state primary listed them as Democrats, that designation
cloaked their true affiliation.
The two candidates who won the Illinois Democratic state primary
nominations for Lieutenant Governor and secretary of state in
shocking upsets are actually followers of reclusive,
ultra-right-wing, perennial Presidential Candidate Lyndon LaRouche.
Mark Fairchild and Janice Hart, two travelers from the Twilight Zone
of politics, narrowly defeated the handpicked nominees of Adlai
Stevenson III. Stevenson won the Democratic primary for Governor with
an overwhelming 88% of the vote.
The returns jolted everyone in Illinois politics. ”This is
insane,” said an incredulous Republican Governor James Thompson. ”A
disaster,” exclaimed Democratic Chairman Calvin Sutker. Stevenson
was both angry and adamant. ”I am exploring every legal remedy to
purge these extremists from the Democratic ticket,” said he. ”But
one thing I want to make absolutely clear. I will never serve on a
ticket with candidates who espouse the hate-filled folly of Lyndon
LaRouche and the U.S. Labor Party.”
The victory of the LaRouche candidates left the Democratic Party
in agitated disarray and may torpedo Stevenson’s chances. Though
candidates for statewide offices in Illinois are chosen individually,
the Governor and Lieutenant Governor must run in tandem in November.
Stevenson is considering forming a third party, a complicated
maneuver that would require renouncing his Democratic nomination and
organizing a slate of candidates for nine offices. But many
Illinois Democrats, including U.S. Senator Alan Dixon, regard that as
imprudent. Dixon urged Stevenson to run as a Democrat and promise to
eliminate the Lieutenant Governor’s office if elected.
After his victory, Fairchild, 28, an earnest-looking electrical
engineer who won the Lieutenant Governor’s spot, attributed the upset
to ”anger on the part of the public at the regular Democratic
slate.” For his part, Fairchild said, he would like to reach some
kind of agreement with Stevenson. Hart, 31, the new Democratic
nominee for secretary of state, was less gracious. A dark, alarmingly
intense woman who has been a LaRouche disciple since she was 17, she
spoke at her victory press conference in the flat tones of a military
commander: ”We will roll our tanks down State Street, and make sure
every citizen is armed, with reason and beauty. We will hang traitors
and hang people who are responsible for feeding our children drugs .
. .” There was more: ”He (LaRouche) will put the fear of God in
people like Henry Kissinger and the State Department, the biggest
hotbed of treason in this nation since Aaron Burr killed Alexander
Hamilton.”
The bizarre outcome was skewed, in part, by the Chicago races,
where Mayor Harold Washington campaigned against the regular
Democratic ticket (see box). In the statewide contests, regular
Democrats were too cocky; Stevenson did not bother to campaign for
his running mates, assuming, like everyone else, that they would be
ushered in on his coattails.
Apparently many voters around the state, unfamiliar with the
candidates, cast ballots for Fairchild and Hart because their names
sounded more ) comfortable to them than those of their regular
Democrat opponents, George Sangmeister and Aurelia Pucinski. The fact
that Hart and Fairchild were listed first, alphabetically, gave them
an edge with uninformed voters. A shoe salesman in Taylorville told
the Chicago Tribune he voted for the two LaRouchians ”because they
had smooth-sounding names. I didn’t know anything about any of those
candidates.” Chicago newspapers later sent reporters out to survey
scores of voters; none of them found a single avowed LaRouchian.
That is not surprising, even though LaRouche has run for President
in the past three national elections (garnering nearly 80,000 votes
in 1984) and his followers court attention at airports by displaying
posters such as NUKE JANE FONDA as a come-on for their often virulent
pamphlets. LaRouche, 63, a former Marxist, is now the leader of a
cultlike, worldwide organization that blames international
conspiracies of bankers, Communists and Zionists for the world’s
ills–including those of the farmers, which may have attracted some
votes in struggling rural Illinois. In 1984, LaRouche claimed on a
paid political broadcast that ”Walter Mondale is an agent of
influence of the Soviet secret intelligence services.”
Despite the crackbrained ideas, a former official of the National
Security Council maintains that LaRouche has ”one of the best
private intelligence services in the world.” His lieutenants have
had meetings with U.S. intelligence officials. His international
operation, run from a well-guarded estate in Leesburg, Va., provides
him with daily reports, while his printing company churns out books,
magazines and newspapers that produce both converts and income. With
perhaps 2,000 disciples, LaRouche ran hundreds of candidates for
office in 1984. Nearly 1,000 are expected to run this year. Though
few, if any, are expected to do well. Democrats in Newport Beach,
Calif., last week discovered that a LaRouche follower was the lone
Democrat to meet the filing deadline to contest a Republican
congressional seat.
Whatever the Illinois victories mean for LaRouche’s fanatical
movement, they exposed a dangerous weakness in the state’s electoral
politics. Even Governor Thompson, whose re-election bid for a fourth
term will benefit from the situation, was troubled. ”The bottom
line of all this,” he said, ”is that every politician in the state
of Illinois better sit himself down and say, ‘I’m never going to take
the voters for granted.’ ”
BOX: Destroying the Dinosaur
Ever since he became Chicago’s first black mayor, in 1983, by
successfully challenging the city’s once dominant Democratic machine,
Harold Washington has struggled to gain practical political control
of a sharply divided government. He has been blocked from doing so by
Alderman Edward R. Vrdolyak, chairman of Cook County’s Democratic
organization, whose followers have held a 29-to-21 edge over the
mayor’s loyalists on Chicago’s unwieldy 50-member city council. A
special election in seven aldermanic districts last week gave
Washington a rare chance to break the deadlock.
The election was ordered by a federal judge, who ruled last
December that the seven districts had been illegally gerrymandered to
reduce minority representation on the council. That very week
Washington, who had been steadily picking up popular support in
polls, was stung by a scandal over bribes allegedly offered to at
least one city official to influence the awarding of contracts for
collecting unpaid parking tickets. Washington was not accused of any
personal wrongdoing, but his image as a reformist mayor fighting a
corrupt machine was tarnished.
Nevertheless, by election week Washington was campaigning with
typical bombast, terming his own candidates ”the magnificent seven”
and Vrdolyak supporters ”crooks and lowlifes who climb out from
under rocks.” In the voting, the mayor’s candidates won in two
districts, and a third seemed certain to be elected in a runoff.
Vrdolyak’s men captured three districts. The pivotal seventh race, in
Chicago’s 26th ward, was a snarl of legal disputes and charges of
fraud, but Washington’s candidate was ahead by a hair. If the mayor’s
man eventually wins, the council would be evenly split, 25 to 25, and
Washington’s own vote could break any impasse.
”We have destroyed the dinosaur,” the mayor declared
triumphantly after the election. Not just yet. Washington may gain a
narrow majority on the council, but Vrdolyak and his followers long
ago passed a resolution requiring that any change in the powerful
committee chairmanships be approved by a two- thirds vote.

I bring you this for your… edification?

At the time that LaRouche delivered his address, a bipartisan coalition of U.S. Senators, representing the majority of that body, had just successfully put down what was explicitly recognized as an attempted coup d’état by Vice President Dick Cheney and company, by defeating Cheney’s so-called “nuclear option.” LaRouche identified that group as the nucleus of a bipartisan concert of action that could be mobilized under his leadership to launch an economic recovery.

Hm. The Joseph Lieberman — Lindsey Graham — John McCain — Ben Nelson bunch are supposed to do what again?

I found something curious about this blog entry. (I have “LaRouche” marked in bloglines.)

For the purpose, I’ll post from an online encyclopedia wikki thingy.
LaRouche did not stop all political activity while in jail. He ran for president again in 1992, met with international personages, and gave interviews. During part of his imprisonment he shared a cell with televangelist Jim Bakker, who later wrote of his astonishment at LaRouche’s detailed knowledge of the Bible. LaRouche was released on parole in 1994. Jim Bakker (born January 2, 1939 in Muskegon, Michigan) is an American televangelist, Assemblies of God preacher, and evangelist beset by scandal, and the former host of The PTL Club (PTL being an acronym for Praise the Lord and People That Love) with his then-wife Tammy Faye Bakker.

Hence, it’s noted here.

OR:

One of his cellmates was disgraced televangelist Jim Bakker, who later described LaRouche as amusing, erudite and convinced their cell was bugged. “To say that Lyndon was slightly paranoid,” Bakker wrote in his autobiography, “would be like saying the Titanic had a bit of a leak.”

Which is probably the only documentation about the Bakker — LaRouche relationship.

excepting this deleted comment:

Saw Bakker on Larry King one night after his release. He said he learned alot from ‘ol Lyndon!

Curious as to what this means, and suspect it means nothing. (Another weird factoid: in a list of “Saturday Night Live reoccuring characters, Al Franken is listed as having played Lyndon LaRouche.)

…..

Any response to this?

So what if I use some of LaRouche’s arguments for destroying any credibility that free-trade might have in the eyes of human beings?

No? Didn’t think so. Scaredy Cats the Whole Lot of You!