“Zavtra Editor Catalouges four Decades of British Malice Against Russia”.

So popped up something from out of Larouche’s pump. Just passing forward some current Russian government propaganda against the British … Oligarchy.
It is not difficult to figure out Larouche’s affinity for the Russian government of Vladimir Putin. For one thing, Vladimir Putin is spitting out anti-British propaganda (still fighting World War II, I suppose, only fighting it from the vantage point of before Germany decided to invade Russia.) For another thing, Putin has a youth movement going, complete with instilled elder generational hatred and references to their enemies by scatological references. More. Regretably the person who posted a glossy propaganda pamphlet for Nashi has stuck it behind a firewall.

Oh, and then there’s the line on Litvinenko. No comment on how this shadows Larouche.

But there is nothing new under the sun, and one hobbles together these pieces in the operation of the Fantasy Shadow Government.
………………………………………….

On Nick Benton:

In his weekly national affairs column last month, Nicholas F. Benton, founder, owner and editor of the Falls Church News-Press, an award-winning weekly newspaper in Northern Virginia, became the first person in the U.S., other than on the Internet, to openly and publicly describe his former association with political extremist Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., during the 1970s and into the ’80s.

I am having trouble believing that he is the first, and “The Internet” can’t exactly be brushed aside as meaningless, apart from the points of anonymity. A National Review article I can’t locate easily in my file folders pops up as seemingly written from an insider, but I suppose it may have just been a mere former member (someone with somewhat more knowledge than, say Rachel Tuttle/Williams for that book I keep mentioning). Besides which, Larouchies would be more than happy to “describe their assocation”. But it does not matter, it really doesn’t. Even if false, I am more than happy to let Nick Benton be the first to have done something here.

What is weird is that if I go back and read anonymous quotations from described “early associates” of Larouche in various news articles — this for instance, and I think Benton is a likely source for any number of them. Here’s some anecdotal evidence of the place Nick Benton has put himself in his community.
One man I wonder about is Robert Dreyfuss. (That has long since disappeared from his resume.) It looks like he has never commented on his Larouche associations, which is his call I suppose, though I do note that it is an issue that dogs him a bit, his critics use against him to discredit him.  I am curious if he has ever been approached and asked about it and opted out.  What I find interesting with him is that his work is pretty continuous — he has covered the same intelligence beats from much the same political point of view.

He wrote it, Benton stated, to clarify his personal and professional purpose for being the first news entity to write and publish the report in April on the coincidence between the suicide of a long-time LaRouche associate, Ken Kronberg, and a LaRouche memorandum circulated in his organization the same day. The memo assailed Kronberg’s operation within the LaRouche circle, and stating that “baby boomers,” ostensibly of the Kronberg ilk, are not “the real world … unless they want to commit suicide.”

“Coincidence”? Never mind. I suspect that additional motivation is found here:

“There are many people who were once associates of LaRouche who cut that off once the true nature of it became clear to emerge as highly accomplished and successful,” Benton said.

He wrote in his column, “I and others who aligned with LaRouche in that period, like Kronberg, were generally well-meaning young people determined to follow through on their zeal to end the Vietnam War by bringing social and economic justice to the world. In that era, being a socialist, advocating the creation and re-distribution of wealth, was considered a meritorious vocation.”

It’s a word of encouragement for anyone in Larouche’s orbit looking to get out, as well a humanizing statement to a group of people average people look at as autotrons — take an account of motivations. Looking over Dennis King’s website, the left side of which is bulging ever fuller these days — as we have that lawnchair out watching the supposed destruction of Larouche’s Empire, there are plenty of items on the dreadful life inside the cult. But I think I spot a hole — successful accomplishments after life inside the cult. Thus, a crucial part of the message is missed — and in a round-about Larouche is aided in attacking his “enemies” from this omission. Or so it dawns on me.

……………………………….

FROM MARC COOPER. (Blog conversation goes on over here.)
Unfortunately, Sheehan’s efforts have borne some fruit — so to speak. Check out this upcoming event in which the “unity” sought be Sheehan is at least partially reflected. One expert fringe-watcher has extracted some real nuggets from the stew of participants and backers of this horrific event. He notes that speaker Webster Tarpley was a long-time militant in the proto-fascist Larouche cult.

I have read comments from “9/11 Truth”ers that Larouche has “infiltrated” their group, and Webster Tarpley appears to be the pin-point of this. I believe Webster Tarpley to be something of a cloaked Larouche affiliate, disassociated only for the point of having enough credibility to disseminate Larouchian conspiracy theories in these forums that would balk at the most direct association. But to say that Larouche has infiltrated “9/11 Truth” is akin to saying that Trekkies have infiltrated a Comic Book Convention. Then again, 9/11 conspiracy theorists are sort of the Crazy Aunt of any Liberal gathering — there, and nobody in control of the proceedings wishes to acknowledge it for fear of drawing attention to it. It came to a point where Eric Alterman had to address them in a Nation article.

I say this based on such FACTNet posts as this:

Chaitkin never left the cult. There are people who claim to have left, but that is usually to hoodwink others. Security honcho Paul Goldstien claims to have left, but hosts soirries for the cult security chief and a guy code named Carpet who probably recieves more money in one week than the entire LYM payroll!

Maybe Lyn has franchised the cult as you can often see the raw material of the cult end up in Webster Tarpley’s material. I once received an email from a person who was in Leesburg as a guest and heard a talk by Lyn about how some of the members need to “go out and forage”. It is not uncommon for cults to send out their people to infiltrate or diseminate more lunacy written with out the cult leaders name attached. Mon has hundreds of front groups. Always keep in mond that spending years and years in a cult like this of endless hysteria will screw you up big time.
And I also say that based on the fact that Webster Tarpley’s current work is still filled with that goddamned Larouchian jargon.
……………………………………………..

There. “What words can I type that will move us one small step in the direction of the utter destruction of Lyndon Larouche?” But I probably would just stick to that paragraph about an assembled post-cult Success story rafter.

To go back to that posting of “Where are the Baby-Boomers supposed to go?”, and tuer07’s response on Second Chances and all that. It really is not the long-term or even middle-term that I had in mind with that question. It is the short-term and the immediate — a practical point, and a point of reference that probably fits the profile of some Field Operators, who are probably experiencing tightened control right about now, and as Rachel Holmes put it — not a problem for those in the National Center in Loudon.

I watched as somebody– I presume mother, even though she seemed a little too young for the three she was toting along — though not inconceivable, also could have been the eldest sister and the oldish woman in the seat adjacent somebody else in the family dynamic, who knows? — hand out some peanut butter sandwich, made out of sourdough English Muffins and peanut butter.  There was this moment when one of the lads, the toddler in the carriage, half handed it toward someone, half didn’t.  The statement was made that the kid wanted to share yet keep the whole thing for himself at the same time.

The site of these three kids  eating the peanut butter sandwiches brought to mind this story:

Trying to remove radioactive sludge that is thick as peanut butter clogged a pump and led to a spill at the Hanford nuclear reservation, officials said Tuesday.

Now workers are trying to determine how to clean the worst spill that Hanford’s tank farm area has had in years.

“The release to the environment of this waste material is not acceptable,” Delmar Noyes, of the U.S. Department of Energy at Hanford, told reporters during a conference call.

No workers were contaminated by the radioactivity and the spill was contained within a tiny area near the waste tanks, so it posed no threat to the public, Noyes said. […]

The waste from the bottom of the tank is so lethal “that a cup full of waste would kill everyone in a room in a short period of time,” Pollet added.
Well, if the United States had the same lax standards for food safety as China, the kids might wel be eating Nuclear Sludge Peanut Butter sandwiches — a cheaper way to the same sensation, I suppose.

I noticed the Steve Novick ad of a few days ago on blueoregon.  The ad spot for the Steve Novick has changed to one priming an interview on Rachel Maddow, but something about the old ad struck me.

3 frames of text flash.  “First there was Paul Wellstone.”  “Then there was Jon Tester.”  “Now there is Steve Novick.”

Interesting.  Apt for his audience there at blueoregon, the primary voter who would donate money.  The Wellstone reference makes perfect sense.  But I do not quite understand the Jon Tester reference makes all that much sense.  Is there a great contingency of Jon Tester love out there in the state of Oregon?
Sure, his campaign served as a protege and continuation of the populist politics Governor Brian Schweitzer, “blue” governor of “red” Montana, and a welcome discontinuation of the politics of the Senior Senator of Montana — Max Baucus.  At least rhetorically — in terms of policy and voting I don’t know that anyone has seen enough.  Nothing wrong with it, as it has been seven months so far in the Senate, but I don’t know that Jon Tester has established himself such that referencing him as a lineage makes any sense.

I can’t figure the “Turning a Red State Blue” figures into the mix either, because Oregon has voted for the Democratic candidate since Dukakis in the presidential races, and has surged very pro-Democratic at the moment.  Besides, Wellstone’s Minnesota is in that mix as well — they voted for Mondale.

Which leaves me with, at least with regards to Tester, the fact that Tester is missing some fingers and that Novick is missing a hand (“Great Left Hook”, as his campaign promises to use as a slogan).  Is that the connection?

Recently I noticed one of those blog to blog to blog conversations dealing with the issue of the words “Progressive” and “Liberal”.  I don’t remember who was involved in this — I think it was Josh Micah Marshal, Matthew Yglesias, and someone at the National Review.

Hillary Clinton used the word “Progressive”, which was determined to be the final nail in the coffin in the transferance of the word “Liberal” to the word “Progressive”.  A poll was released which found in the tipsy world of public opinion which had held the moderate, conservative, liberal hiearchy of public esteem had been inverted with the introduction of the word “Progressive”.  Meanwhile, the National Review person attacked the Progressive Moment of the early twentieth century — which lead the realization that the word “Progressive” is in for as big a whirlwind as “Liberal”.

Actually, if you want the clumsy beginnings of that consult Bill O’Reilly and his dichotomy of “Traditionalists” versus “SPs” — “Secular Progressives” shortened to “SPs” and I would like to give him the trademark so that I may avoid anybody else from picking up his cringe-worthy invention.  I can also point to a Reason article which tied “Progressivism” into such things as the Eugenics Movement and the nadir of America’s civil rights for black people (I think that was the National Review columnist’s tact)– and that book “Bully Boy” from a libertarian perspective attacking Teddy Roosevelt because the Food and Drug Administration is an unwanted intrustion of Big Government into the market-place.

The poll results that show the favorable impression toward “Progressive” and the lukewarm at best impressive to “Liberal” — I do not know what to do with.   The basic problem is that theoretically the two words have two different meanings, but for marketing purposes we now use them interchangably, and thus the use of one to displace the other makes the meanings meaningless.  I have seen debates that posit that the two words have two different meanings, and by the principals that the two stand for — this is what I am.  I find these debates to be meaningless within the context of American politics, angels dancing on the point of the pin, and it shall be that way until the two words are not used reflexively in political discourse to the same ends.

The other problem is that I am out of step with the mindset of Average America in that I am apt to think about these things — as opposed to reacting on a check-off-the-list level.  I assumed that people will regard “Progressive” as a weasley way to avoid the word “liberal” — thus reinforcing the “wimp” stereotype of liberal and getting the liberal/progressive nowhere, but apparently the check-off-the-list equation occurs quickly enough to not give them that pause.  Or maybe I am wrong and they have conjured a difference of meaning where I never knew one existed.
I have been meaning to delve into the history of how the two words have been bandied about over the course of the past century or so, more to the point how we arrived at this rather bizarre liberal – progressive dichotomy.  I have heard repeatedly that the word “Conservative” at its nadir was held in less esteem than the word “Liberal” in the sort of post 60s backlash which has had it at its nadir, but a quick bit of checking shows a few surprises — it is not quite that simple.

I read somewhere that the one thing LaRouche demands is the exceptance and support of science.
He seems to be some sort of science nut. Don’t know if it is true.

Sometimes, when I find my brain turning all spongey after reading a stray sentence like that one (“he seems to be some sort of science nut“), I simply hate having the name “Larouche” indexed.

Okay.  Larouche.  “Right” or “Left”, as that particular message board discussion debates?   He’s a fascist.  His propaganda is roughly Nazi Germany’s (or better still Weimer Republic Nazis) uprooted and placed in the currents of today’s current events.  Once one conceptualizes it that way, one understands why the conspiracies all run back to British Imperial plots.  (This wikipedia article for one time open Larouche associate  and now cloaked Larouche associate Webster Tarpley is off in many ways, but it does not take too much to prick the meaning of the “Versailles Thesis”.  In the same way one finds neo-Confederates still fighting the “War of Northern Aggression”, Larouche and his associates are still fighting World War II.)  As for the exhortation of “science”, we have Ruth Williams (Tuttle) probably never thought a stray person would get so much mileage out of those chapters of her memoir, but to quote her letter at the height of her indoctrination under Larouche, but it was sort of the combination of reading it and a Larouchite asking that question that is their hook, and sooner or later I will have to delve into this one as pertains to every single Larouchian I have read: “Do you know the difference between Man and the Animals?”:

We are becoming members of a new species, equipped to make the conceptual leap which is absolutely necessary if the human race is to survive an impending ecological holocaust.

I have tended to harp on the “I feel like God” exclamation, but perhaps the “we are becoming members of a new species” angle gets to the point a little clearer.  What are the power dynamics that this “new species” (or is that “Master Race”) have with the old species (“the lower 90 percent”, as Larouche’s literature keeps pumping out)?
If I had to go through the run-down of “Ah hah!” moments, I could, but to be fair, I understood it long before I wandered into this thicket: my first Larouche related posts concerned me asking Larouchies why the title of the pamphlet they were hawking was named after an old anti-semitic slur.  They seemed to think I picked that nugget up from a Wall Street Journal editorial I never read.

These days I find myself in a bit of a conundrum.  A weird question pops into my mind whenever I log in here.  “I wonder if there’s anything I can post that will act as one small step in the direction of the utter destruction of Lyndon Larouche?”  I don’t know — a number of people seem to think that is the game I should be playing here, and it becomes a bit unavoidable.  I cannot say that I have much power in that task, but it appears I have more power to do that than I do in directing the topics of any particular political matter, even as it serves as a game of Keyboard Kammando.  Understand, that is why I am harping on Larouche so much these days.
Okay.  Looking at what Larouche is pumping out, essentially for internal consumption, I see the twin bill of “Rally in Pelosi’s Backyard: “Stop Being a Nazi Rohatyn’s Condom!” as well “Nazi Felix Rohatyn Recruits Another Dick Protector!”  Unfortunately no condom reference for “Rep Jay Inslee: Stupid, Crazy, or Under Rohatyn’s Control”.  (That one is my favorite, btw, based on Inslee’s one term in the 4th Congressional District of Washington State.)  I already posted a link to a flickr image of two middle aged men standing in the middle of traffic with poster boards of this crude and embarrassing acidic sexual political commentary, which served as the precursor for Larouche’s latest gutteral level Condom lust.  And, incidentally, Larouche’s definition for “nazi” is “International Banker Holocaust Survivor”.  (Context clues, my good man!)

In this day of blogs, we often get to encounter the actual on-the-street reaction to the Larouche Choir and settings of what is described in their propaganda.
In other news, can someone please do something about the LaRouche supporters that have taken over San Francisco? My efforts to ignore them have not gone over well, so today I elaborated to his posse that I “don’t support homophobic bastards” when the “he thinks global warming was a hoax” was met with “I can prove to you that it _is_!” That was a mistake…he called “I LOVE GAY PEOPLE!” at me as I crossed the street, before resuming his rousing rendition of the “Impeach Dick Cheney” song. I really loathe this crew, because they prey on Bush/Cheney-haters by pretending that they’re offering something more progressive merely by wanting them gone.

Then I find this clustered into a few clumps:

“This System is Finished: The Great Unwind of the Yen Carry Trade”, “The Financial System is so doomed that Regulation may even come to London”, “Issuance of Investment Grade Bonds Collapsing”, “Panic in Franfurt Over IKB: First Prominent German Victims of US Real Estate Collapse”, “IKB Bank Stock Collapse Continues; LaRouche Comments That US Press Will Cover It Up”, “California Budget Crisis — Sign of Worst Times Ahead”, “California Bankruptcy Revealed as Economy Collapses”.

IKB?  American media covering it up?  I can’t find that news, with analysis to it, anywhere. Nowhere.
The stories of the crises spiraling us toward this coming Dark Age brought on by multitude complete Economic Collapses right and left are always part of his background noise, but when ratcheted up serves as signals of tightening control valves inside the cult.  So it appears right this minute. As good a confirmation that the news of mutterings in Larouche’s orbit, at least in his national headquarters, as there is.

Moving on, I see the headline LaRouche’s Cadre School With Ibero-America Invokes Renaissance.  Sure.  I think I saw headlines of that sort in the final faze of “21st Century Science and Technology” — which for some strange reason doesn’t see print anymore.  (For more details, consult an upcoming issue of the Washington Monthly.  Or, you know, ask.)  Does anything Larouchian see print these days?  I actually don’t really know the answer to that question, having not seen a Larouche card-table shrine in some time, or — more typically in the not too distant past because of time happenstances– their droppings of mass quantities of their booklets.  Looking through flickr, it does strike me as a difference between this (a smattering) or this (It seems to be a trend in these photographs of Larouchians standing in the middle of traffic) and  this (THIS is what I remember from a few years, and — Hell– several months back:  the table is loaded with their crap).   Can you produce a Renaissance without printing materials?  I hesitate to note that the famed European Renaissance was prodded on by Gutenberg’s invention of the Printing Press.  There seems to be a bit of a devolution going on here — he is heading in the wrong direction in terms of production of a Renaissance.

Anyway, here’s a quick Count of the numbers at the cadre school Renaissance Faire.  A few things strike me.  If I were Larouche, I would be planning a load of these things.  They serve as an escape from his current problems, and a step to his glory days of unencumbered synchophantic adulation.  These may be the only events where he can go to receive his customary level of syncophantic Adulation these days.  Or so I gather from those “things have changed in Leesburg” points.  His immediate underlings are plotting what to do when he passes on to gain power over his oligarchical holdings, and he has to be aware of that.  The Authorities are investigating, rumors of coming court trials are in the air — in America and abroad.  News media are picking and prodding through his secrets.  His old nemesis, Dennis King, has gotten his goad — and then some.  His mental state is running into the “barricade the bunkers” mode, even more so than normal.

I think the man oughta just go ahead and commit suicide.

It would give him attention.  People would notice.  At the moment the vast majority of Americans with any awareness of Larouche regard him as a relic from the 1980s, when he was at least their monkey-boy, able to be mocked and laughed at.  Today nobody really notices all that much.  So, really, what good is he anymore?  Suicide will give him a chance to be remembered for the joke that he once was — reigniting the old “Queen of England” references floating in the back of everybody’s mind, half forgotten.
It’s not as though he’s a member of the human species.  He gave that one up the last vestiges of that a long time ago, probably around the time he penned his “Beyond Psych” essay.  He is morally already dead already.  He is an empty carcass without a soul.  His soul, if there ever was one, has long since departed.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am not going to kill him.  Nor should anyone else.  His assassination fantasies remain just that: fantasies.  His suicide, whether he chooses to go that route or not, is entirely up to him.

But I think he should go for it.  I understand that one of the persons Larouche has modeled himself after committed suicide. He can follow in his footsteps and re-enact that act, thus fulfilling at least in part his mostly unfilled (and unfulfillable) dreams.

Okay.  I don’t know if this “Keyboard Kammandoes” installment succeeded in taking us one small step further in the direction of the utter destruction of Lyndon Larouche or not, or indeed was counter-productive to such a purpose — but I guess such matters kind of have their own momentum away from me anyways.  I would, for a disclaimer, point out for the record that that screed was nothing other than a reworking of Larouche’s words for Dennis King.
— A word of advice for anyone running around Loudon County:  Stay away from the Kool Aid.
And with that, I gingerly push the “publish” button for a post I mostly typed yesterday night, but decided to sleep on.

“What you have right now is partisanship on Capitol Hill that quite often boils down to insults, insinuations, inquisitions and investigations.” — mouthed by Tony Snow, penned by To Be Revealed sooner or later.
“nattering nabobs of negativity.”
“pusillanimous pussyfoots”
“hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history”
“vicars of vacillation”
— Spiro Agnew, penned by William Safire and Pat Buchanan.

Ron Paul?

Ron Paul sucks.

Eggs.

Ron Paul sucks eggs.

I think anyone looking at the picture objectively will come to that conclusion.