From Joey Difatti’s website:

Joey on the issues…

• Defend our conservative values from attacks by extreme liberal groups

Joey Difatti being the man who just dropped out of a Louisiani state senate race due to “health reasons”, or perhaps because the newspaper was about to report that he had two citations for lewd contact in public men’s restrooms.

But this statement about “defending our conservative values” from “attacks” by “extreme liberal groups” makes sense thusly.   Closeted Gay Public Bathroom Sex is a conservative value.  Undercover police officers sitting in bathroom stalls are an extreme liberal group.

Actually, certain libertarians would suggest as much about the undercover police officers being “liberal” — them seeing any echoes of government “entrapment” and labeling it “liberal”.  So maybe I’m not that far afield with that one.

Imagine you are Jeremiah Duggan’s mother. You receive a call from his conference where Jeremiah says, “I’m in trouble.” After that, Jeremiah dies. Placing yourself in her shoes, and THAT is why it is an insult to say that Jeremiah Duggan is being used.

I am tempted to just type out the just over 4 page Chapter 39 of Younger Than That Now, entitled “Epiphany”, appropo of the fact that at the end of the chapter, Ruch Tuttle/Williams walks out and leaves the NCLC, which as my Kirby fan Larouchie points out, one can do — psychologically difficult as it may be. The one important exception to that rule in terms of physical ease is the particular circumstances of that particular Schiller Institute conference which Jeremiah Duggan attended.

Ruth is selling copies of New Solidarity door to door with her fellow NCLCers — Bill, Rodney, and Lorice. While doing so, a mentally ill and deranged woman strikes at and hits Lorice, leaving her bloodied and needing to be taken to the hospital. So as Lorice is being taken away for medical attention, Ruth and Bill soldier on selling New Solidarities at a different location. That night:

“No we didn’t tell anyone we were going to that neighborhood,” she [Lorice] was saying, and Bill and I nodded in affirmation. “Yeah, Rodney’s a new recruit. But I don’t think…” She listened a few minutes. “There was nothing I could do. I know it was my responsibility…” Finally she sighed and handed me the phone. I saw her walk wearily into the front room to join the rest of the group as Arlen read from the
latest briefing updates, giving everyone their evening fix of information from the National Committees.

I told my version of the incident to the man on the phone, adding, “At the hospital the police told me the woman is known in the neighborhood as mentally ill. She’s always hallucinating about the devil, and today she was tripping her brains out, too. They were trying to contact a family member to get her commited.”

“And you believe them?”

“Well, yeah,” I said. “You didn’t?”

“Look at the facts: the working class is being systematically destroyed by Rocky’s Trilateral Commission. There’s a psychological holocaust going on out there. This is the direct result of Nelson Rockefeller’s interference in our daily organizing. If you do your job better, the workers won’t be destroyed like this.”

“So it’s my fault?”

“Let’s go over the story again, only this time I want you to tell me more about what Rodney was doing.”

“Look, he was ringing doorbells, just like the rest of us. That’s all.”

There is a dynamic in this account from 1974, shared with both the Jeremiah Duggan situation and the Ken Kronberg situation. The Larouche line is to skip past the human being in trouble and run straight to a conspiratorial spin, conspiracy against HIM — the mentally ill assailant doesn’t exist in that story, for she is a force from Rockefellar. Jeremiah Duggan was simply a figure being used by the British Authorities in their grand conspiracy against Larouche. More lack of humanity is shown in that Larouche never delivered to the Duggans any semblence of condolences until just this month. (Contrary to some observations made recently at FACTNet, a recent news report had the Duggans pointing to something as “the first condolence we’ve ever received from the Schiller Institute” — five years after the fact. Contrary to the larouchepub article recently posted here, Larouche did not “express condolences” from the very beginning) In the case of this 1974 account and Kronberg, we also see the blaming of actual Larouche workers (witness the Larouche penned internal aggrivation at the baby-boomers for their morale problems following Kronberg’s death — which lead to Jeff Steinberg’s invitation for them to seek counseling with … I don’t remember his name).

More can be said about Jeremiah Duggan, and more will be said. The RC Harvey fan / Larouchite actually said “The implication is that the Schiller Institute is a dangerous organization.” This is a false statement. It’s an explication.

……………………………………………………

I find myself mulling the role of Larouche’s Electoral machine. You know that Larouche has an electoral machine, don’t you? He has a dozen or two elected state representatives. They introduce the latest Larouche plan to solve the curenct crisis that Larouche is flogging to their state legislators, which gives the minions that work the street the appearance that something is happening on the front that they are pestering both US congress-critters and average people about — press releases flutter from the Larouche Pub about individual representatives pushing the Larouche Plan to Avert the latest Crisis. Currently it’s the HBPA, the Larouche plan to solve the mortgage crisis.

What happens is that the bills being pursued by normal politicians are denounced as coming from the Felix Rohatyns of the world, ergo absolute evil. Sometimes, after things settle away a politician will speak words that will have Larouche claim as being that politician embracing the Larouche plan. Here, I’m thinking of Chuck Hagel making some remarks about Iraq and foreign policy, and Larouche’s publication saying that that sounds an awful lot like the Larouche Doctrine. (As I’ve said already on this stupid blog of mine, nope, for The Larouche Doctrine specifically had the tenant that it must be called the Larouche Doctrine, and that was nowhere in Chuck Hagel’s comments.)

We’ll just have to wait and see if that part of the occurences comes about.

The Larouchite elected officials also get to introduce Larouche for his speeches and world-historic Internet broadcasts. Must be great fun to be them.

There is nothing much more tedious than reading a bad ham-handed reference to Talking Heads lyrics.  Such as the case with Paul Krugman:

Now, as they survey the wreckage of their cause, conservatives may ask themselves: “Well, how did we get here?” They may tell themselves: “This is not my beautiful Right.” They may ask themselves: “My God, what have we done?”

But their movement is the same as it ever was.

It’s not that those lines can’t be used for this sort of whimsical effect, and indeed I encourage appropriation from “Once In a Lifetime”. But I gather they shouldn’t be altered to a third person perspective. It’s best to keep in second person, or to wind over to first person.

And “This is not my beautify right” as replacement for “wife” simply does not work.

It’s a given that the Susan B Anthony Dollar has a horrible design.  I find myself currently in the possession of a Susan B Anthony.  I needed to break a five for bus fare, so I asked around a bit for five one dollar bills, waving the five.  Eventually I found someone, a family where one person pooled together where one pulled out two ones, and another pulled out her two ones, and somewhere along the line somebody threw in what I thought was a quarter.  I groaned slightly at what I thought was the loss of seventy-five cents in this transaction, sort of rationalizing it mentally as a balance-of-nature thing due to breaking somebody’s one for public phone coins with all the change I had at that time — eighty cents, perhaps — meaning I’d be down — what?   Fifty-five cents?  I’m out a generic cola!
A couple days later, I looked and saw that it was a goddamned dollar.  Looking down at it, the quarter fits into the serated edge, and counting the sides of the coin — a bit tricky, it appears to have eleven sides.

Which brings me to the question: Um. Why? Eleven sided coins? Why? It is nearly a circle, but not quite a circle. If I were designing the Susan B Anthony, I think I’d have, like, maybe a hectagon. Or probably six sides — a sestagon? (Hexagon, dammedit!)  That would make it distinctive enough to be able to separate from the quarter, and would make it thus functional.

Conspiracy mutterings have it that the Susan B Anthony dollar was designed to fail — can’t honor them feminists, or something. I don’t know. Susan B Anthony is sort of the safest suffragist to honor — something of the equivalent of Booker T Washington. But really. Eleven sides?

Sometimes the knocking down of historical figures rings a little bit unfair.  The examples of this are George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and various founding fathers — amongst any number of other sins — slave-owners be they.  Regardless, towering figures worthy of respect.

Christopher Columbus is the one figure that is sort of deserving of being knocked off his pedestal.  The worthiness of it is that he more or less has been knocked off — the attack on Christopher Columbus has stuck, to the chagrin of those that complain and yell about “political correctness” coming out of Academia.

Yesterday I was talking with a student at PSU (Portland State University) and a student at PCC (Portland Community College).  The PCC student said he had no class today; the PSU student said he did — and was surprised that the PSU student didn’t have that day off “Columbus Day, isn’t it?” My response was “Columbus Day isn’t a politically correct holiday”, which I needed to quickly come up with an explication that ended up as “Indian Killer”.

Now, I walked by PCC today and saw students lounging about, suggesting that there might have been classes there, but let’s assume they took Columbus Day off.  There is a strange bit of ideological cleavage there, something that suggests why Bush in his two presidential campaigns found his way there and Gore went to PSU.  I don’t know how to further explain it, except that I watched Alan Greenspan explain the “creative destruction” in the death of the manufacturing sector of the economy with “This is why Community College is the fastest growing educational sector” — the training of a workforce (another ideological cleavage; after the 1994 Republican victory, the Congress changed the word “Labor” to “Workforce”; I think after 2006 it’s been changed back) —

and it rings right on back to where Christopher Columbus Day is observed and where it is not.

There are a number of aspects in carrying on about Lyndon Larouche that are a bit of a challenge. For instance, most people do not take him seriously and will never delve terribly deeply into widespread beliefs about him. I refer here particularly to the matter of anti-semitism — in the rare circumstances where an average person encounters a Larouchite diatribe and gives it any brain-span, they will tend to think of it as anti-semitic, what with its references to the Bankers and its odd element of Anglo-phobia– rather vaguely unable to pin-point or quantify why they think so. Something just sort of rings awful with the terminology.

This is more or less all right. But I myself, by dent of rambling on about Larouche (and let it be said that for this blog, due to external events, the year 2007 is sort of the Year of Larouche) — have a bit of a responsibility to delve a tad deeper and quantify it somewhat. Mind you, it’s not very much deeper, but it is more nonetheless.

Another challenge. Something I keep encountering with Larouche supporters, the challenge of which is for me to keep a straight face. Here’s the line: “People have been calling Larouche anti-semitic for 30 years now!” The answer to that, after a bit of a puzzlement is simply “Yes.” I opted for a revision of that matter of fact answer, “35 years, within an inkling before hand.” (The “inkling beforehand” a reference to Tim Wohlsforth looking squinty-eyed at Larouche’s cold Marxist economic interpretation of the Holocaust.)

With that I am charged with believing lies that have been told to me. An invisible question is thus placed before me: “Who are you going to believe: Me or your own lying eyes?” (Just as I do not need Dennis King to tell me about Operation Mop-Up, I do not need Dennis King to tell me that Lyndon Larouche is anti-semitic.)

So, here is that shallow delving into the matter, the one thin example of the flowering anti-semitism, and one example is all I really feel I need for my purposes. I tend to go back to this example because it just sort of slapped at me like a salamandar (and atthe same time the implications of the dual diatribes agaisnt the baby-boomers and the praising of he LYMers struck me) — slimy and smelly.

Synarchist. Felix Royatin.

A conspicuous word choice. A conspicuous figure to cite. Why, in the panoply of words in the English language, would you possibly pluck out “synarchist”? Why, of all the figures with the same ideological position and the same position in the world, would you possibly determine Felix Royatin as the great Evil in the world, pulling strings like a marionette?

Synarchist is a synonym for “International(ist) Cabalist”. Really. Felix Royatin is an investment banker, and Holocaust Survivor. Really. It’s the Jewish International Bankers’ Cabal Conspiracy. That is all. After this, it does not really matter if Larouche himself were Jewish.

This is just sort of second nature for Larouche Inc., and you can take it for whatever its worth — forgive the LYMers, for they know not what they are saying with this.

Without even delving further into this issue, I’ll quote Dianne Bettag back in February or March: “Good game”. I’ll ramble further to the my interpretation of her quote and say “CHECK MATE!” Just as my guess is Dianne Bettag didn’t believe for a moment I was convinced by her comment (“Your source, Dennis King” [WRONG] “High Times Magazine” [Um. He wrote an article.]), I do not believe for a moment a Larouche supporter will let him/herself see this. Nonetheless, I believe I throw my pronouncement of “Check Mate!” out there (tongue firmly held in cheek) with more intelligent backing than Bettag’s “Good Game”.

A while ago, there was a fascinating debate on the FACTNet board amongst those ex-Larouchites regarding Larouche (and Inc)’s anti-semitism. At first it seemed like the gulf of difference was rather large, but as it moved forward it became clear that the gulf was rather slim, and something of a consensus came through. Larouche clearly uses anti-semitic language, it was clearly more pronounced at a time when it was useful in raising funds [in seeking support from the Liberty Lobby] — which suggests a level of cynicism in the anti-semitism — but he is not solely or primarily anti-semitic. All of which falls short of where Dennis King stands on the matter, but that is his preogative, and it suggests somebody else needs to write a book.
With that I am charged with believing lies that have been told to me. An invisible question is thus placed before me: “Who are you going to believe: Me or your own lying eyes?” (Just as I do not need Dennis King to tell me about Operation Mop-Up, I do not need Dennis King to tell me that Lyndon Larouche is anti-semitic.)

So, here is that shallow delving into the matter, the one thin example of the flowering anti-semitism, and one example is all I really feel I need for my purposes. I tend to go back to this example because it just sort of slapped at me like a salamandar (and at the same time the implications of the dual diatribes agaisnt the baby-boomers and the praising of he LYMers struck me) — slimy and smelly.

Synarchist. Felix Rohatyn.

A conspicuous word choice. A conspicuous figure to cite. Why, in the panoply of words in the English language, would you possibly pluck out “synarchist”? Why, of all the figures with the same ideological position and the same position in the world, would you possibly determine Felix Rohatyn as the great Evil in the world, pulling strings like a marionette?

Synarchist is a synonym for “International(ist) Cabalist”. Really. Felix Royatin is an investment banker, and Holocaust Survivor. Really. It’s the Jewish International Bankers’ Cabal Conspiracy.

This is just sort of second nature for Larouche Inc., and you can take it for whatever its worth — forgive the LYMers, for they know not what they are saying with this.

Without even delving further into this issue, I’ll quote Dianne Bettag back in February or March: “Good game”. I’ll ramble further to the my interpretation of her quote and say “CHECK MATE!” Just as my guess is Dianne Bettag didn’t believe for a moment I was convinced by her comment (“Your source, Dennis King” [WRONG] “High Times Magazine” [Um. He wrote an article.]), I do not believe for a moment a Larouche supporter will let him/herself see this. Nonetheless, I believe I throw my pronouncement of “Check Mate!” out there (tongue firmly held in cheek) with more intelligent backing than Bettag’s “Good Game”.

A while ago, there was a fascinating debate on the FACTNet board amongst those ex-Larouchites regarding Larouche (and Inc)’s anti-semitism. At first it seemed like the gulf of difference was rather large, but as it moved forward it became clear that the gulf was rather slim, and something of a consensus came through. Larouche clearly uses anti-semitic language, it was clearly more pronounced at a time when it was useful in raising funds [in seeking support from the Liberty Lobby] — which suggests a level of cynicism in the anti-semitism — but he is not solely or primarily anti-semitic. All of which falls short of where Dennis King stands on the matter, but that is his prerogative, and it suggests somebody else needs to write a book.

Dear Larry Craig:

Please.  Don’t just stop at completing your term in office.  Take a stand, and RUN FOR RE-ELECTION!!

Seriously, I want this to happen not just for crass partisan reasons.  I believe in the myth of Don Quixote.  I almost would like him to wind up renominated in a bloody primary — due to a large number of primary opponents seeing this as an opening, and then see Idahoans groan and re-elect him to office, due to the deep Republican nature of the state of Idaho.  Just to screw with the way the world is supposed to be working here.

Dear Republican Party:

Really?  You’re thinking of a Senate Ethics Commission?  What good could that possibly do for your party?  Also, what the hell is there to investigate?  The answer to both questions is nothing.  But by all means.  Investigate.

Dear Joey DiFatti:

How many of you are there?  And by “you” I mean Republican politicans crusing public bathrooms for gay sex?

Oh, dear lard.

Blazak says Hammerskin Nation might have picked Portland for its event because groups like it have long looked to the region for the so-called “Northwest Imperative.” The imperative is the two-decade-old idea started by the white supremacist group Aryan Nations that Oregon, Washington and Idaho will someday secede to create an autonomous Aryan homeland.

I don’t think that group would be in attendence at the latest meeting of would-be-secessionists, as it would make awkward seating arrangement placed next to the Cascadian Independence Movement, as I suppose they would have to be seated.*  (Geographic arrangement, right?)

As for the “Hammerskin Nation” Music festival — happening in a mythical corner of Portland by hidden shadows sometime this weekend.  Um.  I still want to see what the Top 40 charts for that genre of music (?) looks like.

*Note: the blog post I linked to just there is a lie.  I never did that; that never happened.

“Paid for by Philip Morris USA”.

The next sentence offers up whatever organization Philip Morris USA is funneling its money into — something like “Oregonians Against Taxes” or something or other.   I don’t know what the Campaign Finance Law is that requires that Philip Morris can’t just rummage straight to “Oregonians Against Taxes”, but it seems to be a good one.

The rule of thumb seems to be that if you want the name to be remembered, you place it at the end of the advertisement.  If you want it forgotten, it is thrust quickly at the start.

But the line “What?  I thought this was a tobacco tax!”, said by the man at the kitchen table with his wife sincerely investigating these things they must vote on once he learns that it is more than just that — it is a constitutional amendment– clashes with the opening “Paid for by Philip Morris USA”.

This is the time when fortunes are made, during periods of economic turbalence in a prime segment of the economy.  If you have enough money, you can make prime investments by buying low and then, when things pick up, selling high.  Case in point:

 As the credit crisis started to shake global financial markets in August, the owners of the 22-acre (9-hectare) estate at 309 Taconic Road in Greenwich, Connecticut, cut their price to $19 million, showing turbulence in the U.S. housing market penetrating the wealthiest strata of American society.

If you have an extra $19 million lying around, now is the time to use it and wait for this property appreciate in value.  Make a tidy sum, I’d think.

(For a round-table discussion of these problems, try the Onion.)