I don’t quite know what to make of this myspace user.  The blog entry where he announced that he is now taking off and joining the Larouche Youth Movement is gone, wiped away.  Which is either a positive sign or a negative sign… I do not a’know.
What I still have from the rant, or have with easy accessibility (I could probably dig in and find the rest if I were slightly more motivated):

I have been spending time at the local Lyndon LaRouche P.A.C. (Public Action Committee) with the youth movement. I have gotten a better education since Teusday than I have gotten going to any school. Lyndon LaRouche is an educated. intelectual, political, and concerned individual. He is opposed to the British oligarchy (or as you all might call it the elitist nazis in the world steming out of Great Brittan coming from the Queen and operating even in the United States, inluding the White House) and is trying through all actions sane to bring it to it’s knees.

That’s all I have.  It goes on to say that his previous political and philosophical stance — Anarchism –  was good, but this… THIS… Larouchism… is simply better.  More Purposeful, you see.
… because, as you see in the previous post… he’s fighting those neo-nazis in the White House.  (As well Al Gore and his nazi gardens, but this is a movement that destroys those traditional political spectrum, you understand?)

Which spurs me to wander through his myspace site, past the multitude of PUNK ROCK videos (and he does realize that Punk Rock is a British Oligarchical — slash — Zionist — slash — Synarchist Plot, doesn’t he?) I come to his … discourse?… on Anarchism.

He misspelled Henry David Thoreau.  And something about this rapid discovery of anarchism, and dismissal to something else entirely, is a little haphazard and quick on the draw.
You can also go to www.akpress.com to get books and the like about many important undergound issues concering all movements.  If you are a PUNK or a feminist, or even a hippy, this is the place for you all.
That website is not altogether bad, but it is devoid of the important underground issues concerning the “movement” he aligned himself with…

… where he will have to sooner or later give up his Punk Rock.  (A bit nihilistic, isn’t that?  Which, I guess, is the point of finding something less nihilistic.  The vacuum provided by…?)

……………….

Re-Reading the Washington Post article from 2004, which I read first when it was published (and indeed linked here) after observing that April Witt read through the same news articles I did last December, I chew back over the Jeremiah Duggan story, and I have no clean explanation.  The lesson for aspiring cult leaders is to hold their conferences a bit out-of-the-way, where physical escape routes are difficult and unwieldy, and where the recruits are in out of their element, not entirely sure of where they are.  This is particularly appropriate in Europe, where you can meet them up in different nations.

Stop and laugh at this one:

In early 2003, Jeremiah telephoned to say he’d met a LaRouche activist who wrote for a French-language LaRouche newspaper, Nouvelle Solidarité. The literature he gave Jeremiah to read in French didn’t always make total sense, but Jeremiah chalked it up to his difficulty translating unfamiliar political terms, his mother says.
Why it doesn’t make total sense.

I once read a study, or maybe a quasi-study, that looked into the issue of how much money could be sued over for the day to day copyright infringement that bloggers commit if anyone were absolutely serious.  I think the standard m’o concerns the cutting and pasting of current news articles, beyond the codified 3 paragraph limit.  But there are other means of copyright infringement that can be committed.  (I once posted a couple of disparate floating essays under the title of “The Pinkwater Copyright Infringement Jamberoo“, more of a rescue mission than anything else.  I notice an extent morality rationalization, a fairly good one, in the public concerning the purchase of bootlegged dvds and the like: “if the corporations that own it release this tv series or movie, I’ll buy them from them, but if they withhold them — I’ll get them from the bootlegged source.”)
Here’s a copyright infringement, unless it falls under the domain of for purposes of public commentary.  Here’s an image I clipped from The New York Times of December 29, 1954.

I have a bit of a time wrapping my head on the severity of this censorship.  The newly minted Comics Code Authority could not have a wrinkled old hag — so the ghoulish character of Sarah Harper is given wrinkle cream and an amazing dentist.
I imagine it changes the contours of the entire story.  Not that it matters too much, as this is disposable children’s entertainment, and we can’t be bothered with merits of the entertainment – slash – artistic decisions that go into the creation of this flimsy comic book.  (The artist does not appear to be attempting a Renaissance, so what’s the point?)
In the immediate future, the Comics Code would force some rather creative release of a new type of monster.  Out of necessity since the classic monster forms of Vampires and Witches were banned, meaning the Jack Kirbys of the world had to fill the vacuum with creations such as… Fin Fang Foom, Bombu, Groot…

… who still appears to break that “Distortion in Face” rule that Charles Murphy felt compelled to smooth over.

John Edwards and Mitt Romney appear to be turning up in the public imagination as mirror images, or sorts.  The line is that there’s a certain plasticity to both of them, a certain pretty-boy image, and a certain phoniness.

The charge is particularly strong by the oppostion party for both of them, but I think it permeates the images the primary voters of both parties hold for Romney and Edwards.

The problem with the charge against Edwards is that it misses any real mark whatsoever.  I don’t know that Edwards is any worse than any of the other candidates in terms of “phoniness” (and Mitt Romney is the worst on this score), but if you charged me with lining up the case for Edwards’s phoniness, I could do so easily.  Start with the Iraq War Resolution.  John Kerry, who was pilloried for his ‘yea’ vote and his subsequent attempts at explaining his frame of “nuance”, had some backing in terms of his deliberations leading up to his vote.  He sits in the same camp as, say, Chuck Hagel — who also voted “yea”, also poked around at the issues in Senate committees — and has been retrobate for the Republicans for expressing disfavor toward the Iraq War enterprise.  Edwards, meanwhile, blasted full force ahead on the measure, cherrily stood next to the hated Joseph Lieberman and the deal-making Dick Gephardt when the Resolution was borne out, and spent Democratic Party events lecturing the Democratic faithful on behalf of the need to throw out Saddam.  He was playing to conventional wisdom, the need to pad out his “Defense” bonafides in a light legislative record — to an extent that went beyond what John Kerry felt he had to do.

Today John Edwards says his vote was a mistake.  Which is okay.  It is a change of heart that happens to coincide perfectly with popular sentiment and the new conventional wisdom.  And it is a change of heart that would be a little better seen as a true change of heart if he had shown — dare I call it Kerry-esque — signs of equivocation in the lead up to the Resolution vote.

The point I make by hashing out his wild swings on the Iraq War resolution is that policy issues such as this better qualify for consideration of this line of attack than what is being peddled at us — which boils down to: He’s running a campaign about poverty AND YET He’s rich and buys expensive things — and spending a good deal of money on his appearance.  (The $300 haircut is the classic case.)  This is, to quote Mitt Romney, a non sequitur, or a null set, which is that the Republicans apparently believe that Edwards or anyone who runs on a campaign concerning poverty is doing a campaign of Class Envy, positing that Edwards is a hypocrite because he is supposedly railing against the Rich.

I could dredge up Ann Coulter’s crudest version of this line of thinking within the confrontation Elizabeth Edwards made on Chris Matthew’s show, but I do not see any reason to.  The higher brow version was in the guise of the recent news article that posited Edwards’s anti-poverty program as a cynical bridge to his election campaign, which it may as well be, but — as the Edwards faithful pointed out — it didn’t bother to survey those it affected.

I keep hearing this advertisement on KPOJ for Washington Post’s website.  None of it is that interesting — it’s a continual series with a woman generally selling that day’s opinion offerings interspersed with a couple of stand-bys.  One hawks a voting record database, which is fair enough.  The other stand-by is an aggravation.

The ad copy goes something like this: “Every election cycle brings with it new terms.  In 2000 it was ‘hanging chads’.  In 2004, we had ‘locked box’ and ‘fuzzy math’.  I have a feeling in 2008, “blogs” will rise to the top, and Washington Post dot com has a lot of blogs.”

The problem is that the phrases for 2004 are connected with the 2000 presidential campaign, and the 2008 phrase came into the force in 2004.  Beyond which, the thought of a professional top-down group of blogs offered to us from this inside the beltway news source as something cutting-edge is fairly depressing — that famed top-down hierarchy that was so a part of Web 1.0 but is dashed away with Web 2.0 — or so the hyped frame of references works.

Bloomberg has already claimed that his charitable foundations have removed thier support for anything to do with fred newman and the newmanite psychotherapy-sex-politico personality cult.

oh, yeah and fred newman thinks the Jews in weimar germany deserved to be killed by hitler because they were the tools of the capitalists.

uh, what would that make bloomberg and all his customers and supporters?

yeah, screwing the guru is always claimed to be the way to enlightenment. newman and the maharishi mahesh both have that in common.

when will anyone ever learn?

What does that make Bloomberg? An opportunist. His clearest road to the election was as a Republican, so he switched parties from Democrat to Republican — and thus was borne — Republican Mike Bloomberg. Democrats outnumbering Republicans by a large margin, he needed to get onto another line of New York’s ballot, thus he needed the ballot spot for the “Independence Party”, a faction of which concerns Fred Newman and his… um… psychotherapy-sex-politico personality cult.

This item of government patronage is (was?) simply the most bizarre part of Bloomberg’s political machine. I imagine Bloomberg granting the Newmanites their “All Stars Program” their charity, and then wishing to be done with it. Further, I don’t see this affecting his presidential bid much, for the sheer audacity of Newman’s pugnance sort of tossed into the realm of disbelief, and because Bloomberg himself has a step or two of removal.

But the gift the Newmanites receive is the waving around of Michael Bloomberg’s name within their cult. Hold on a minute! Name the person referred to with this sentence!
In a loft in downtown Manhattan scattered with mementos of Che Guevara, Dr. Fred Newman paid tribute to a new revolutionary hero, a man he would like to see in the White House next January.

This is 1996, and the answer is Ross Perot.

As for the Weimer Republic references: I realize that Hitler was dismissed as a crank, but I have a difficult time imagining Newman’s cult doing much of anything in Greater America, beyond their immediate fantasy realm, beyond their immediate reality realm.

Incidentally, a muse of mine — the very odd 2000 Reform Party Presidential nomination campaign — at wikipedia. I think it only scratches the surface of the worms floating around that strange brew. Pat Buchanan, Lenora Feluna representing Fred Newman, John Hagelin representing Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Question: which one of those is the parasitic organization?

The big question right now among Republicans is how to remove Vice President Cheney from office.

And We’re off!

Even before this week’s blockbuster series in The Post, discontent in Republican ranks was rising.

I like how the Washington Post refers to their series as a “blockbuster post”, a series which — incidentally — only tells us what anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear and noses to smell have either known or suspected all along.

That leaves Fred Thompson. Everybody loves Fred. He has the healing qualities of Gerald Ford and the movie-star appeal of Ronald Reagan. He is relatively moderate on social issues. He has a reputation as a peacemaker and a compromiser. And he has a good sense of humor.

I hate this article.  I am reminded of seeing speculation from 1971, laying out the scenario where this would happen, that a Democratic Presidential Nominee Edmund Muskie may select a black running mate.  You will note that he did not.  More recently, in 2004, peak oil enthusiast Michael Ruppert was one of many, both off the edges of the political scene and around the center, that Cheney would be thumped as vice president in preparation for that race.  The idea was a bit incredulous seeing as, we all know, Dick Cheney is more powerful than George W Bush.

Actually my favorite speculative boohaahee of recent vintage was the presidential bid of Condoleezza Rice.  Based on what information, no one knows, except that the idea made various peoples (Dick Morris in particular) hot.
Who wrote this speculative article anyways?

The writer is co-host, with John Meacham, of On Faith, an online conversation about religion.

Who’s that?  I’m not saying he is necessarily wrong — maybe Cheney is being given the boot — though I imagine the triumvarte of Romney-Giuliani-McCain would be a bit peeved by Fred Thompson’s ascension to vice-president– but why would he have any insight that you or I do not have on the issue of Cheney and the churnings of Republican politics?