Uh huh.

How do I put this?  Let’s go ahead and bring Adolf Hitler into the picture.  Let’s pretend that he said something like, I don’t know, “In order to get a horse you are riding on moving, you need to yell ‘Giddy-up!'”

Now, pretend that I am giving a lesson on riding horses.  So I say to my horse riding class, “Adolf Hitler had good advice on how to ride a horse.  He said, ‘In order to get a horse you are riding on moving, you need to yell ‘Giddy-up!'”

So it goes and rages on of the meaning of various figures in history.  The battle lines are drawn back to the Confederate Lines.

Controversy was sparked last fall when MTSU senior Amber Perkins circulated a petition requesting the name of Forrest Hall be changed. She initially won the endorsement of the university’s Student Government Association Senate.

One could probably look up a long period of time when Nathan Bedford Forrest was referenced often and positively into the Congressional Record.  By the old defenders of White Supremacy.  Lauding his work in defeating the Northern Aggression and the carpetbaggers and their negro henchmen of Reconstruction.  I wonder when the last time Nathan Bedford Forrest was referenced in the Congressional Records.
You know, considering that the South lost the Civil War, but defeated the Reconstruction — the second part of his career — establishing the KKK — sticks out a little more strongly than the military genius that Ted Poe wants us to reference — meaning… you have to understand, when I hear the name Nathan Bedford Forrest, I think founder of a terrorist organization.  (Actually, before today, I have to pause for a second and ask weakly — “Name is familiar.  KKK, I think?”

When all is said and done, his military strategies were at the conclusion more successful the second time around than the first.  (If you want to say he was an insurgent fighting an occupation, feel free to.)
Okay.  My fellow moon-bats, for the purpose of this particular moment I’ll use that term… How about Comrade Howard Zinn on Columbus, and the zinger he throws at Samuel Eliot Morison:

Despite this scholarly language—“contradictory conclusions…academic disputed…insoluble question”—there is no real dispute about the facts of enslavement, forced labor, rape, murder, the taking of hostages, the ravages of disease carried from Europe, and the wiping out of huge numbers of native people. The only dispute is over how much emphasis is to be placed on these facts, and how they carry over into the issue of our time.

Let me make myself clear. I am not interested in either denouncing or exalting Columbus. It is too late for that. We are not writing a letter of recommendation for him to decide his qualification for undertaking another voyage to another part of the universe. To me, the Columbus story is important for what it tells us about ourselves, about our time, about the decisions we make for our country, for the next century.

Never mind.  You can maintain an opinion of Columbus completely different from Zinn’s (to denigrate or minimize Columbus Day is to an affront toward Italian Americans, Pat Buchanan says every year) and still see what his point is, and what my point is with regard to a defense of Ted Poe’s use of Nathan Bedford Forrest to prove any point whatsoever.

I think I am exhausting anything I have to say about this topic for the moment. So, I will safely move on to other topics and less estoeric concerns and leave this aside, barring any major development, for at least a week.

Thus, we have experienced the “white collar” social castes which, by and large, distinguish that Baby-Boomer generation from its “blue collar” contemporaries, a caste whose influence is reflected in the actual long-term effects of the influence of the “white-collar 68ers,” over the 1968-2007 interval. These effects have tended to prompt the culprits, the Baby Boomers themselves, to resort to sweeping and destructive, draconian measures of social control, such as today’s lunatic, so-called “environmentalist” measures of globalization, and, thus, into methods of political tyranny employed, ironically, tragically, as “corrective” measures of control of individual behavior, as by “environmentalist” measures which generate long-ranging ruinous effects as bad in their own way, as those of the pro-eugenics Hitler regime earlier. Often, even usually, this draconian reaction to long-term consequences of patterns in cumulative local, short-term behavior, is a reaction of a type which has little or nothing to do with the causes of the problem, but is simply the tyrannical enforcement of some antic delusion, as, presently, by many among our Baby-Boomer stratum itself.Jesus Christ on a freaking pogo stick! The “Larouche” search on my bloglines is pumping through quite a few items, which means the monkey-job in charge of posting these things up — presumably in Leesburg, Virginia — is working right now. For the sake of bemusement, I click in and see blathering about Baby-boomers!

To sum up the situation, guaging the general gist of the material and headlines from the latest edition of EIR (once upon a time a $300 publication — supposedly — now just a mouseclick away): We are on the verge of economic collapse. It’s the baby-boomers’ fault. And Al Gore’s. Not mutually exclusive, since Al Gore is a baby-boomer.

The post-war “Baby Boomer” syndrome passed through two distinct initial phases. The first phase, 1945-1956, is best described as “the triumphalist phase,” the phase of the euphoric delusion that “our type is on the road to endless triumphs” over other “classes” in our own nation, and over the world at large. This phase, of the “Organization Man,” coincides with the emergence of what President Eisenhower was to describe, at the close of his second term, as the initial phase of the “military-industrial complex.” In the meantime, over the 1957-1961 interval, a deep recession had demoralized the typical parental households of the “Baby Boomers.” There was a recurrence of that cyclical-like, manic-depressive cultural pattern during the span of the Clinton Administration, when Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s wildly lunatic financing of the combined housing and Y2K “bubbles,” prompted a wild-eyed, “we are wonderful” euphoria among the Baby Boomers, who had now taken over power in government from the hands of their parents’ generation. This was followed by the wave of cultural pessimism, echoing somewhat the 1957-1961 interval of pessimism among the generation of the typical parents of the Baby Boomers themselves. It was the politics of the disastrous 2004 Gore-Lieberman election-campaign, not the mystical power of the menopause, which prompted, and thus made possible the 2000-2007 pattern to date. For me, working in circumstances and professional functions which afforded me special advantages at that time, I can attest that the reactions to the delusions of 1993-1999, and the shift from 2000 on, parallel almost exactly that of the parents of the Baby Boomers with similar experience during and following the 1957-1961 interval. One wonders: it possible for Baby Boomers to actually think for themselves? Is it possible for Baby Boomers to actually think for themselves? I don’t know. Maybe he can issue that challenge for the baby-boomers under his control. Can the younger-than-baby boomer set — the Larouche Youth Movementers — think for themselves? For example: how is it a stunning EPIC crisis du jour that demands their guru be put in charge to create a new “economic architecture” when he has described a pattern of boom and bust — pass through tough times and come back to better times, as he said?

I notice a number of mistakes in this stupdifying article, of which I posted a paragraph and a footnote. What is the Gore/Lieberman 2004 campaign? And can we start getting the Larouchites to ape the phrase “mystical menopause”?

So, are you going to attend this? If no, why not? It’s as though he grabbed the propaganda from the corporate-funded think tanks (and there is money to be made by doing so) and catupulted right past it, just to make sure!

…………………..

Some time ago, the card-tablers came and tossed their usual pamphlets around. And thus we have the guidance for “Organizing the Recovery for the Great Crash of 2007”.

I think the most expedient way of disposing of this is to simply guide through the photographs — stock footage it all. So we have George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler. And we have What do these four have in common? They are all agents of the Anglo-Dutch forces who have been committed to destroy the US Republic since its inception. I think is background noise. It is filler. Don’t pay any attention to it. He just grabbed something out of his pamphlets from the 1980s to fill space. More pertinent to Larouche’s mind-set of the moment is the dichotemy between the following two items:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean turned to the upper 3 percent of family income brackets for financial support and notably the cronies of bankers and synarchist Felix Rohatyn(**). The lower 80 percent are basically ignored.

Former secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin, an intelligent and couregous man, but he’s not offering solutions to the economic crisis in which he sees dearly.

In a weird way, Howard Dean, because he garnered grass-roots support and is a hero to the Democratic base, is an enemy for Larouche to play off of. It is to pretend that he is the real grass-roots Democrat, and Dean is a pretender, a stooge to the upper 3 percent and … um… synarchists. (A term nobody but Larouche and his minions use.) I first noticed this when Larouche claimed a special election victory — an upset for the Democrats– last December, a defeat for Howard Dean’s “50 State Strategy”. How is that? I couldn’t make heads or tails of the thing, for our little cult leader was basically just bluffing.

On the other hand, Clinton and the Clintonites are a-okay! The photograph for Bill Clinton in this pamphlet has it that he was “going to enact economic policies toward Russia similar to those proposed by Larouche” but that the Impeachment stalled this, and thus came the Economic collapse Russia suffered in 1998. Hence, in a different pamphlet (I was hoping it would be this one, but apparently I was wrong — it’s one I mused through and threw away a long time ago), a pravda-like moment that I believe is emblematic of a number of things…

So, I guess it’s one of those “historic web-casts”. A 20-something year old “leader” of the “Larouche Youth Movement” asks, to paraphrase “What are your thoughts on Bill Clinton? Even though he’s a baby-boomer, he seemed to be good.” Larouche answered, as capsuled in the photograph caption “Bill Clinton, flawed baby-boomer, showed tremendous growth through his presidency.”

Further down we have a photograph of… the 20-something year old “leader” of the “Larouche Youth Movement”, and the caption, along the lines of “Outstanding leader of the Larouche Youth Movement: her leadership and poise show she’s going places and will guide the next generation out of the debris left by the Baby-boomers.” Or… something to that effect.

She… didn’t really ask anything… or show any leadership here. It is followership she showed in asking the question the Cult Leader wanted to be asked. Grooming for a place in middle-management of Larouche Inc, I suppose.

I suppose she might have known exactly what to ask from Larouche radio, as described here:

the place is kinda empty, a bunch of chairs, white board, laptop/speakers, coat rack. and a dinner for everyone. some ppl make weird remarks when i decide not to eat due to the use of chicken in every dish conflicting with my vegetarian status. they are all listening to a live broadcast (some kind of radio, maybe CB, but defiinitly not AM/FM) of a LaRouche reporter. mentions some current events specific bills in the senate/house, growing anti al gore polls.

… maybe one of those “stations betwen stations” that the Digital High Fi Radio ads are always going on about?

My mind reeled at that display, and it definitely was communicating something. Dennis King, who I must point out once wrote an article that was published in High Times magazine, and by a title and with a focal point completely different from what Larouche has told his minions — may well explain that unsettling display within this call to action. (Actually, Dennis King confuses me a bit. He is Ahab to Larouche as Moby Dick. Which, I guess, is fine — if King didn’t exist, somebody would have to fill that void.):

To help people who will be leaving the cult after decades of dependency and isolation from the real world, there needs to be a hotline and a support organization. This is a priority because the 84-year-old LaRouche apparently has decided to demote or expel scores of his burned-out old timers (those whom he calls the “boomers”) so he can establish fresh and energetic LaRouche Youth Movement (LYM) cadre in positions of authority. He seems to believe that the LYM’ers recruited in recent years, and ranging in age from their late teens to their mid-thirties, will carry on his legacy in an aggressive manner after he dies. He shrewdly (if nastily) recognizes that many of the boomers are tired of being 24-hours-a-day activists and are just going through the motions while longing for more personal space in their lives—and that once he’s gone they will either wander off or strive to turn the organization in a less fanatical (i.e., less “LaRouchian”) direction.The purge is well under way in Europe, where dozens of boomers have already been forced out. In the United States, Ken Kronberg was one of the first, but there will be more middle-aged LaRouche followers ruthlessly rejected after decades of slavish loyalty. Even if most of these people do not seriously contemplate suicide, they will be disoriented and in desperate straights. They will need professional counseling, they will need the support of former members who understand their experiences and have the compassion to talk them through the crisis via late night phone conversations, they will need assistance in surviving economically and finding jobs (or training for jobs) in the real world.

The uproar over Kronberg’s death may cause LaRouche to slow down his purge of the U.S. organization, at least for a few months, but a hotline is also urgently needed to help newly recruited young people, many of whom are not yet fully indoctrinated and might get up the nerve to escape if they were to receive a little encouragement as well as transportation and an escort back to their parents’ home.

It’s as good an explanation of “WTF” as anything. But in terms of post-Larouche Larouchism, I am having a difficult time imagining anything working. I suppose he can grant the powers of observation to somebody. North Korea went from Kim Il Sung to Kim Jong Il, and the cult of personality there continued. We don’t have a similar dynamic at work here, and if you strip it all down it is more personaity based a cult than any ideology, so… to what personality do you run it on to? Still, if I were in Larouche’s shoes, that’s the only possible way forward.

———————

Additional.  I am kind of embarrassed that I didn’t post this when I posted this late last night, but the wee hours of the morning were getting to me.  I would be remiss if I don’t cover this from the all pervasive angle, as opposed to the transitory issues of personality politics I dealt with of manipulating the supposed Clinton versus Dean controversy.  Synarchist is a synonym for international cabalist.  Felix Rohatyn is… well… a prominent Jewish banker (and Holocaust survivor).  So what Larouche is referring to is the International Jewish Banker’s Conspiracy.

Waiting in line at a Fred Meyers behind a lady prone to say “oh dear”.  She is having trouble figuring out how the bill is so high, saying “Oh dear.  I wasn’t prepared to pay that much.”  The cashier is gracious enough in this situation, throwing darts as to what might have tipped the price a bit more steeply than she was expecting.

The “oh dear” lady gives the last ditch effort to garner some semblence of control over her uncontrollable situation.  “Why, I think I will do all my shopping at Safeway from now on.”  The cashier looks on, blankly.

My experience tells me that Safeway is ever-so-slightly more expensive than Fred Meyers, and has a more obnoxious card system, more obnoxious to people like me who’d prefer the corporation not have my shopping information on hand.  Regretably Fred Meyers has a card of sorts, which doesn’t give you a phony discount (phony in the sense that I’m prone to buy whatever brand is on sale, so I’m not really “saving” the amount the receipt claims I am), but does eat into the promotional budget such that I can draw a line from its existence to fewer coupons and cents off.  I once had a Fred Meyers cashier ask the customary “Have a card?”, and after I said “no”, say “Good idea.  Best to keep out of the database.”  I swear I wanted to tip that guy right then and there.  At any rate, the “oh dear” lady is not keeping up with inflation, and this is a case of the sticker shock that meets us all when we stare at something and ask “How can that puny thing possibly cost so much?”
Waiting for the denoument of the proper item being either taken out of the shopping melee, or for her to gulp it down and pay for everything — overpriced though it may be, I glance over at the periodicals.  I see the headline, on a sidebar of what I don’t think is People but is something like People II, “Swimsuits for every Body Type”.  The picture it shows underneath these words is of Kate Hudson in a small bikini.  Which, I suppose, is a swimsuit for a particular body type… the body type that you see appearing on most magazines that have the impetus to show a picture of a woman in a bikini.
Whatever sells magazines.

I may as well post an email or two from out of my bloggings to this category.  This came to me in January of 2005, sometime before I became apt to jib and jab through 40 years of Larouche’s stupid career… and before media outlets started feeling me out for help on this topic.  (And by media outlets I mean two of them.)
I just found your blog via justiceforjeremiah and was reading Scott's statement about LaRouche.

Any tips?

I honestly didn’t know how to move through this, and as I pointed out my blog actually covered about 80 percent of all my experiences with Larouchites — which amounted to, in real world excursions, very little.  I know more than I did then and it occupies a greater part of my conciousness than it did then– I actually, for the first time ever, had a dream that involved Larouche the other night — it was the type of dream that I occasionally have which I wonder if others have so complete and fluid in its narrative structure that I wish there was a device that I could just download it onto the written page and ship it off to a publisher– which is a signal that I am no longer as completely ajar from this topic as I once was.  I now have a better background of references to historical precedents of just what it means for a Larouchite to be seeking out martial arts training because of irreconciable political differences with those he meets.  At the time it seemed in keeping with a strident brainwashed militancy.  Today, I can reference training in Leesburg or early NCLC and bloodies knuckles and machettes at Communist meetings, in prepation for Epic Street Battles.

Oh jeezuz.  I should prepare something like “Part 2” for “How to dissolve a Cult.”

The book Dialectical Economics by esteemed Marxist econo-myte Lyn Marcus, published in 1975 by some imprint of the Lyn Marcus Capitalist Concern Inc., opens with the following dedication note:

“To my enemies, who made this book necessary.”

Not an entirely cheerful dedication, but I suppose it befits a dense polemical journey into a realm of fantasy. So, putting myself in the midst of Lyn Marcus’s whereabouts, circa 1975, I have to wonder…

Who are his enemies at that point in time?

Um… At this point in time he was making overtures to the far-right and anti-semitic “Liberty League”, who’s publication would include an advertisement for Larouche material saying he was the only respectable Marxist. We are a couple years past “Operation Mop Up”, an string of events that I cannot overstate in significance to those concerned. But, on the other hand, this book appears to be a collegation of his teachings from the late 1960s to …. circa 1975.

Having recently read The Prophet’s Children, and posted the chapter on Landon Laroach, I wonder. Do angry residuals from his battle to gain control of SDS (at Columbia at least) make any appearance? I can look to the index for “Action Faction” and “Praxis Axis” and find, amid the unreadable gunk… well…

Praxis signifies nothing less than an entirety (universality) of human practice. Kant properly insists that practical reason cannot be located in the notion of the pleasure or desire associated with the actualization of a particular object or class of objects. He thus adduces that a priori content for practical reason as “pure practical reason,” since he locates substantiality in the “thing in itself” and the understanding. Where he dialectically demonstrates the existence of necessary principles governing particular objects he necessarily attributes to those principles the efficient nature of pure reason (Logos) in the same broad sense as does Hegel (ergo realism = idealism). The difference between Kant and Hegel on this point is that Hegel demands the immediate equivalence of the extended logo […]

Okay. I stop this paragraph, because I have a confession to make. I posted this for the sake of torturing you. Still, today’s membership of the Lyn Marcus Youth Movement can compare and contrast their current cadre school study guides with that of their fore-fathers — who, I will go ahead an term the Expendable Baby-boomers. The Expendable Baby-boomers can reminisce on … different times… when the Fifth International was in full steam and they were on the Vanguard of staving off financial crisis after financial crisis, right and left! Otherwise, I invite you to pretend you didn’t read that.

Kant articulates explicitly and repeatedly what amounts to the painstaking opposition of his notion of Praxis to the pragmatical empiricist sophistries of SIdney Hook’s bawdlerization of Korsch, or the even more trivialized dictionary nominalism of the “praxisite” or new working class cults of the late U.S. New Left. […] To use the term “praxis” as a fancy synonym for “practice” in the cracker barrel sense is an ignorant schoolboy’s prank.

And, indeed, the footnote points to further anger and derision at the faction of the SDS in which gained control, and Larouche was unable to pull into his realm of control. I suspect other “enemies” pop up in equally acidic manners in this unreadable book. Regrettably, there is no space for Nelson Rockefeller or Henry Kissinger.

Shouldn’t I be pondering David Broder’s studied Importance or something?

I watched a procession of protesters streaming across Pioneer Courthouse Square, chanting something like “Hemp NOW! NOW Hemp!”, and singing something like “We like hemp, yes we do.”

Standing at the corner, yelling into this mix, was a small group of Christian fundamentalists. I think they were yelling a chant akin to “You will burn in Hell! Jesus Saves! Ezekial 3:17!”

All of this was, perhaps, par for the course. I saw a sign that suggested it was part of the “Million Hemp March”, a joke if there ever was one considering the size of the crowd — large, I suppose, so far as these things go. But what I couldn’t figure out for the life of me…

At the end of the procession, there was what appeared to be a dragon. Why?

I think we should remind ourselves because I remember every day that on September 11, 2001, we thought we were going to be attacked many, many times between then and now.  We haven’t been. I believe we had a president who made the right decision at the right time on September 20, 2001, to put us on offense against terrorists, and I think we as Republicans should remind people of that.
No I didn’t.

…………………..

I really want to leave it at that, pithy and obnoxious.  And if you want to, I invite you to leave it at that and quit reading.  But it seems like political analysis and debate requires a bit more explication.  al Qaeda attacked the World Trace Center in 1993.  Then they attacked it again in 2001.  That’s an eight year lapse between successful attacks on American soil.  I expected when I got around to thinking about it for a moment on 9/11 a duration like that before they manage to do so again.  If things went right for the evil doers, perhaps a duration to the major foiled plots of New Years Eve 2000 would have served an equal diliniation of time.

Perhaps you were different.  Perhaps you were gripped by fear that on 9/11 that you thought we were in for a bombardment of terrorist strikes, some of them hitting you right in your background splitting that old oak tree you placed a bird feeder on in Greensville, Iowa.  But you can’t live with that irrational fear, it is — I suppose — a 9/11 mindset, and we need to adopt a post-9/11 mindset.  So destructive is a 9/11 mindset that the much maligned pre-9/11 mindset would be preferable.
In the meantime, the map we and terrorists are looking at is a little bigger than America, let us not forget that, so can it Rudy.  Nobody likes you anymore.