Sometimes I get email that I can’t tell what it is.  I understand that there is a type of spam that is a random series of phrases and words, hatched to see if you click to it.  But these emails come across as relatively coherent — if loopy, and thus… who knows?  Maybe somebody is reading my blog and thinks they have insight into something I care about.  Example, and if you clear out some clutter it is a coherent story I hear about from time to time, worth some activists’ attention:

Why? Why?? Why??? If pirates should be punished, how about Du Pont, the robber? Could you (intellectual property proprietors in U.S.A.) avoid shouldering loss for hoodlum Du Pont¡¯s shameful behaviors for profit? (If you log on , copy and paste the 8-Chinese character full name of Du Pont ¡°ÃÀ ¹ú¶Å°î»¯Ñ§¹«Ë¾¡±, you could see more than 10 published English or/and Chinese open letters by me on more than 10 pages from the first one.) All intellectual property proprietors in U.S., how are you? Your government sued Chinese government for ¡°not doing its best to fight against piracy¡± to WTO on April 9, 2007. Chinese government publicly reiterated its resolution to strictly crash piracy, and compensated related companies in your country with several billions USD for their loss. As a result, enterprises involved in piracy were devastatingly struck, but related company in your country still thought Chinese government was not in its best to crash piracy. If now your government still fails to convince or force Du Pont to fulfill its obligations in Agreement 1995, world public may have a series of doubt and concern below. Since Du Pont could 100% publicly possessed by power (exclusive possession) Mr. Huang¡¯s patent technology of effective and nontoxic agricultural pesticide, why venders in other countries were accused of violation of law for just selling some piratical disks, which is far from 100% publicly possessing by power the right of production and sales of the disks worldwide? Why could Du Pont distain and trample the law, but venders have to observe all laws? Why must laws be strictly enforced by other country¡¯s government? Although other country¡¯s government has the intention to strictly enforce the laws and take relevant actions, since Du Pont¡¯s behaviors-publicly possession of Mr. Huang¡¯s patent by force, refusing to fulfill its commitments in Agreement 1995 to pay patent fee and license fee to Mr. Huang for many years, slandering China ¡°a raffish country¡±, and Mr. Huang ¡°a rascal¡±, writing letter to threaten and intimidate Mr. Huang and bringing false charge against him before Chinese police-did not deserve what they should have, with the feeling of unfairness and negative mentality caused in the public worldwide, would that take the effect of ¡°strictly enforcing the laws¡± as expected? Whether it would instigate a minority of people to breach your intellectual property as revenge? Whether it will lead to a vicious circle of competitively violating the others¡¯ intellectual property? If these doubt and concerns unfortunately come true, would it be an absurd situation in which other intellectual property proprietors in your country should shoulder the loss for Du Pont¡¯s unashamed violation of agreement? Then why should trade intellectual property proprietors¡¯ legal benefits for illegal benefits of Du Pont and its accomplice? Why?Why??Why??? Is it necessary? Implementation of a law, regulation or agreement should rely on not only compulsory measures adopted by government, but also, or more important, on conscious abidance of related parties worldwide. To achieve that goal, related law-executing departments must bear ¡°all are equal before the law¡± in mind during execution process, but must not ignore open and brutal trample of laws, regulations and agreements of one certain member, who is with great power or has special interest relations with the executor. Otherwise, any agreement between governments will become blank before public without any sanction. Disputes between Mr. Huang and Du Pont comprise of adequate fact evidence and clear legal relations (rights and obligations), namely Du Pont has been fully entitled to the rights regulated in Agreement 1995, now simply carrying out the corresponding obligations will solve all problems. What we are waiting for now is just forced fulfillment of Du Pont of obligations in Agreement 1995 by law-executing departments in your country. Best wishes! Universal Agent: SXF

Mighty good news at that.

Alas… Sigh.

I heard parts of the new John Mellencamp album “Freedom’s Road” recently.  I won’t tell you what to do with it — which is to say I’m not going to tell anyone to stay away from it as if your life depended on it or to run run run to your nearest (soon to be antiquated as we fade into the download age) retailer of compact discs and get it immediately.  I have no strong opinion on it.

But I am bothered by something.  Emblematic is the song, sang with Joan Baez, “Jim Crow”.  Read the lyrics and riddle me this:

Okay, we understand that Jim Crow has ” Went and changed his name” and that “he’s still actin’ the same” and, as the second stanza says, skipping along joyfully undisturbed.  But really now, I’d like some specification of some sort or other.  Otherwise, as is the case, we just have a vague statement that racism exists out there… somewhere… somehow…

Which means it’s a stupid song with no meaning…  a lazy act of poetry.  A little ditty about Jack and Diane…

For a moment I thought about changing that rather generic “Political Discourse” to “a gutter outlet under the supervision of Wall Street Fascist John Train”. But I thought better of it. What would my other subject matter, for this past week at least, Mitt Romney think about being left out of the picture? I’m only marginally part of the conspiracy, and I suspect only as an after-thought. Really, the conspiracy pretty much centers around Dennis King, he of… um… High Times magazine article fame.

Scary guy, that John Train.

There is more on the conspiracy over here, at the very happening Larouchepac, which together with EIR (but it’s undoubtedly from the same computer terminal) has been kicked into high gear and has been pumping out a whole mass of dreck for the past few days.
There is one quick item from the first paragraph worth considering.

Pro-fascist New York investment banker John Train’s long time hod-carrier, Dennis King, has launched a scurrilous slander campaign against Lyndon LaRouche. King has posted a series of smears on his website and other internet blogs concerning the recent death of long-time leading LaRouche collaborator Kenneth L. Kronberg. These slanders, along with King’s posting of stolen documents, are a distasteful exploitation of a personal tragedy in pursuit of Train’s political vendetta against LaRouche and a disrespectful disregard for the memory of Kronberg.

Now I turn your attention to the comment left by Dianne Bettag:

What does it make YOU if you publish stuff you have no personal knowledge of? How much research did you do before you published Nick Benton’s article and then responded to it as gospel…?

Bettag is referring to this article by Nick Benton, who I suppose is probably bought off by a “synarchist” of some sort with a Jewish name and a biography that takes him back to the Concentration Camps. (Bottom of two Larouche-related posts ago, concerning the charge leveled against Howard Dean, “synarchist” appearing in no fewer three titles in the deluge of Larouche articles being pumped out this week, and undoubtedly in many other articles.)

Which is based mostly on these and these and these and these internal documents from Larouche-land.

Which, according to that paragraph from Larouche-land are King’s posting of stolen documents.

Ergo, I don’t much care who Nick Benton is. A google search makes it appear that he writes editorials from a liberal opinion. I assumed at the time, and still do, that his source was Dennis King, he of High Times article fame, whose source I can only assume is some mole in the organization — actually, probably a baby-boomer. Unless I am to believe that King intercepts Larouche’s garbage at some junction, and can reassemble shredded documents. Or maybe he has hacking capabilities. Who knows? At any rate, our friends in Leesburg do not deny their authenticity, thus I am not terribly annoyed that I took Nick Benton’s article “as gospel”.
I left a message of some interest on the FACTNet board, which received this response:

I have read your blog and find it sharp and funny, and pretty insightful. But again, choosing LaRouche as your subject elevates him into an interesting & important subject, like a rare lilly species being examined by a confab of horticulturists. Isn’t the attention LHL receives out of proportion to his significance? The emergence of Dennis King in the role of coordinator of LHL activities and intelligence might not have the effect of saving young people or freeing people still with LHL, either. Because it could prove to members that one of their old enemies is back and is proof of the vast conspiracy out to destroy them.

I suppose it is a rare poisonous lilly species I am examining. He’s a little dis-ingenous with what makes the ex-Larouchites of the board think he is a plant, they should quit obsessing on the man. Apparently he cares as much as the next guy there, otherwise he would not be reading this blog or commenting on that board.
Yes. The attention I am giving LHL is out of proportion to his significance. But when I finish with him, I will likely gravitate toward something else of relatively little importance. (M i k e G r a v e l?) Beyond which, although I have little interest in “building a blog community” per se, it does fit Tip #3. I stumbled into this topic, and have not yet extricated myself.
Dennis King is the person who most cares about this subject, thus he is the one who cares enough to organize. Anybody who would fill in for his stead would be similarly demonized by Larouche. A different poster at FACTnet brings us this comment:

By the way, could anyone imagine what the world would be like if Lyn actually did succeed)? It might make an interesting visionary play or book to picture a LaRouchian world in which only Beethoven and Bach are played, no popular music, no jazz, no rock or rap or folk. Where no modern art is created but we are stuck only rehashing the classics from the past without any hope of creating new forms of art, music, drama, etc. The personality cult for Lyn would probably dwarf that for Stalin or Mao!!!

He would. It would. Fascism is like that, I suppose.
Muse also, as I figure out a way of butting in to respond. Give it a shot, anyone!:

I’ve read all the posts thus far; I too spent a few years in the organization and have very mixed feelings about it. First, for anyone to say that Lyn is a non-entity or has negligible political/philosophical effect amounts to pure innocence of fact, or to plain denial. Ideas can resonate. The LYM have been briefing and prodding Kucinich for years now. They obviously moved him to take action/bleat his rant. One might politely ask: how many world parliamentary bodies have YOU addressed; how many world figures have endorsed YOUR candidacies? Lyn’s effect is there, small perhaps but persistent. I got in after becoming inspired to assay a World Historical identity, yeah I know, but really, Lyn amd the org were cranking out a lot of intriguing theory in the 90’s especially, that’s what really brought me in: e.g. reviving Schiller’s Universal History angle and his “species consciousness;” Lyn’s insistence on physical economy/science-driver economy/infrastructure development; the push to comprehend a monster genius like Gauss, and how he determined asteroid orbits; man as capax dei and imago viva dei; the papers on God and metaphor, Substance of Morality, Jesus Christ and Civilization, America’s Manifest Destiny, and such. Sort of an ecumenical theism it seemed, at least on the surface, but with also a lot of depth. It looked like Lyn had modulated up from the early silly stuff, towards a JQ Adams type of American System theorist and figure. Anyway I found the theory intriguing in a provisional way at least and joined up, I had theoretic issues but I put them on hold—at least somebody was trying to do something to address the historical question generally.
I wised up to my future as a pack mule for the LYM, saw other unpleasant aspects, and phased out. But I’ve often thought that for all his faults Lyn is sort of a Least Imperfect Vehicle: clearly there are sillinesses and tawdrinesses, but at least he TRIED, to enunciate and work towards SOME sort of programmatic theory of a future directionality for the human race, with the New Bretton Woods initiative, which has some definite international resonance; his vision of 5,000 next-generation fission plants for the world, fusion-torch technology, &c. There does seem to be a growing discussion, even amongst some mainstream commentators, of a looming financial meltdown; and the US is in any case headed towards fiscal train wreck as the Boomers age, though Lyn doesn’t use this formulation to describe “the crisis”—which admittedly is perpetual in Lyn’s rhetoric, but then again, how ARE we going to move forward out of the mess the world is in? Where are we going; how are we to develop the sort of power needed to e.g, protect the planet from asteroids. The cynically disillusioned herein may say nay thanks, but are you offering up anything, at all, beyond tactical kindnesses? Maybe tactical kindnesses are the most we can do; maybe there is no solution; but people have a right to spend their life’s coin as they wish. History isn’t stagnant and I give Lyn the right to proffer up ideas and programs, and I give people the right to associate as they wish, to have a say and try to change history by action, even if I find silly or disagree vehemently with much of it. Indeed I find it troubling politically: the anti-Israel animus, on display of late especially in the venomous screeds of Dean Andromidas, and in the insinuations Lyn has publicized to the Muslim world that Israel was behind 9-11; the utter ignorance of the fact that the Koran itself is the source of much Islamic radicalism; the bizarre charge that Galileo and Newton were reactionary puppets of the Venetians; the fatuous Bush=Hitler/ “Chief Justice Roberts is a Nazi!” rants, &c.
I.e., Lyn is quite a mixed bag. It’s terribly sad what happened to Ken. Fidelio was a beautiful magazine in every sense; it seemed proof to me that there was something bigger going on with Lyn than mail fraud. Maybe if Lyn had been less of an egomaniac; maybe had the NC’s flown coach instead of first-class; maybe had Lyn and Helga lived more frugally; maybe then the members, and the German leadership, could have had some more comforts and securities; but if you choose to orbit a sun, you may get burned. I couldn’t take the heat, but those who have given their lives for the glorious cause of a New Renaissance, for a new monetary system, for a vision of a future—and for its enunciator—well, they have given their lives for it… And I will say this also: ‘though I certainly didn’t initiate it I helped to get the LYM thing started. Before I got out I was personally involved in organizing some of the cadre schools. The idea that LaRouche’s people beat poor Jeremiah to death appears to me so utterly ludicrous as to lend credence to a “Get LaRouche” hypothesis. The cadre schools focus on Lyn’s obscure musical aesthetics, on analyzing the catenary curve and various arithmetic/geometric means, and on “becoming world historical.” A blame-Israel-first component seems fundamental to Lyn’s system, but the idea of beating up potential recruits, would be a laughable allegation if it weren’t so weighty in implication. Unless there are/were some really, really bad goons on the Euro staff, which would be a huge surprise to me, I say the explanation lies elsewhere. Why does Dennis King call Helga Lyn’s “dog-wife”? Anyone can say Lyn is the merest shyster, charlatan, and con-artist, but isn’t the reality more complex? He may indeed be or have been a con artist, but I think he’s also on to some important dimensions of history in some provisional, adumbrative way. Thus my ambivalence.
Ugh.

I heard a quote from Mitt Romney today, apparently from an interview that is going to be aired on 60 Minutes this weekend (or some weekend, at least), which is sort of a defensive posturing against the more irksome aspects of Mormonism to the effect of:

“I can think of nothing worse than polygamy.”

It is a strange arena that no other candidate will feel the need to wander into, and for all the racial politics surrounding Barack Obama and the gender politics surrounding Hillary Clinton, I cannot possibly figure out what the equivalent would be — at least in terms of bluntness.  Naturally the host of the radio show I heard the quote on, Rick Emerson 11 to 3 970 AM, plowed through “Um.  The Holocaust?  A giant meteor striking the Earth and destroying all life on Earth?”  (Polygamy, as anyone who ventures through Utah or rural areas of adjoining states, is not completely dead — offically stricken from the Church of Latter Day Saints, the offshoots of the religion striving toward the pure meanderings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young against the accomodating mainline church carry on… awkwardly.)
Coming shortly to a move theater in Portland is the well-reveived at … it wasn’t Sundance?… movie on about the most viewed news article on the Seattle Times’ website.  That would be the incident in Enumclaw… Zoo.  I think I’ll pass, knowing that the mild curiosity I find with the subject is not going to be well displayed with any narrative.  They’re showing the Buffy the Vampire musical episode on the screen next week or soon thereafter.  I’ll wait for that one.
Meanwhile, as a follow up question, I would ask Mitt Romney “Which is worse…?”  Feel free to answer that question!

I was planning on panning Al Sharpton’s slam on Mitt Romney (Mormon)– which he assured everyone that he will be beaten by someone who believes in God.

Mitt Romney is many things, but an atheist he is not. Congressman Pete Stark is the only open “non-theist” elected to federal government. I want to elect an atheist to the presidency, but I recognize that is not happening. I doubt very much we’ll be electing a Mormon to the White House any time soon, which is to say that we’re probably not electing the Mormon that is being offered to us for the presidency right now.
But it would seem to put me in the company of the two commenters to the thread entitled something to the effect of “Barack Obama: Now Officially Killable” — which dovetailed to the Rush Limbaugh smirky adaption for “Barack — the Magic Negro”. (My only real point for Rush is that he is going to mine the psycho-racial-politics to pick up and flog anything like that LA Times article for those phrases.) Which is the specter of people foaming at the mouth wanting and demanding to say “negro” like the good old days.

Al Sharpton not mentioned in that blog post, and yet… the commenter brings him up. Why? I suppose there’s a tangeantal quality that rounds him into anything about political incorrectness. I am surprised neither anonymous commenters hit at the anachronism found in the name “NAACP”. (As an aside, I once sat while a barber was clipping my hair, the tv flashing some item concerning the NAACP. The barber actually asked the question “Why isn’t there a National Association for the Advancement of White People?” Awkward silence from me for the rest of the clipping. Actually there is a NAAWP — founded by David Duke. Maybe the barber can create the National Association for the Advancement of Non-Colored People?)

Al Sharpton? Huh? In one way the comment about him comes from nowhere, in another way it comes from a generic bullet point list.

…………………

Small update: actually I probably should dredge up the transcript to find out Al Sharpton’s context in what was a debate with the now “crusading” Atheist Christopher Hitchens.  Which is to find the answer to the question Why Romney and not, say, more aligned with the Christian Right (I would be assuming in terms of Sharpton’s defense that he’s claiming it’s a “It’s time for the Christian Right to meet the right Christian” statement Brownback???

Okay.  I am breaking what was supposed to be a week-long moratorium, and I get the feeling I am in too deep to leave those things aside.  Not to put too fine a point on this  — I think published in a Larouchite pamphlet of some sort, — but I need to point something out

Lyndon LaRouche has repeatedly noted that he’s never had a single political enemy who has tried to destroy him, who wasn’t thoroughly evil.

The latest round of slanders against LaRouche, launched by fascist Wall Street banker John Train, through gutter outlets such as Dennis King’s website and other internet blogs, serves to underscore that very point. The memo published in yesterday’s briefing, “Lynne Cheney, John Train and Dennis King: Obsession with LaRouche Reaches New Low”-which is now posted prominently on the LPAC website–explains that the current slander wave “mimics the campaign run by King [on Jeremiah Duggan and blah blah blah.]

I want you to pause on “and other internet blogs”.

In terms of blogs, and he specifically said ‘blogs’ — that would be … um… so far as I can tell — and I am sure if there were others it would appear on this Kenneth Kronberg memorial page, this blog and … the one you are staring at right now.
The secret is out.  This blog is a gutter outlet under the supervision of fascist Wall Street banker John Train.