I.\u00c2\u00a0 So.\u00c2\u00a0 Ramsey Clark chimed in with a comment, condolences.\u00c2\u00a0 I guess that makes him the highest profile for this — but again, we can place Clarke roughly analogous on his position visa vie Larouche at the end of the 1980s with where Roger Stone had stood 2017-2018.\u00c2\u00a0 Roger Stone hasn’t said anything.<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153I feel very saddened about the loss of Lyndon LaRouche. These things come in their time. Everyone\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s death diminishes us all and Mr. LaRouche will certainly find his place in history. He was treated unfairly in his life, for his vision and his work. His courage is especially notable in the face of pervasive and vicious propaganda. Time will correct this, in his memory. The truth will out.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em><\/p>\n II.\u00c2\u00a0 Mike Gravel gets tarred with the Larouche bar in three ways — one<\/a>: compared and listed as “also run”s in history (don’t think he ran in 2004), tasked with making an appearance before the Larouche gaggle<\/a>…<\/p>\n Worth pointing out… a tweet response that was deleted from Mike Gravel’s tweet feed:<\/p>\n PeoPLes HisToRiAN<\/strong><\/span>\u00c2\u00a0<\/span><\/span>@lunadyana<\/b><\/span> Mar 20<\/span>\u00c2\u00a0 \u00c2\u00a0<\/small>Explain LaRouche ties please<\/em><\/p>\n He (or his campaign) explains it thusly<\/a>:<\/p>\n So, for example, the Jewish Worker piece about his associations, when we brought them up to him, he had forgotten about some of these people. And we really dug into it, he didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t know about their associations. [For him it was] always about, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Well, I got a speaking invitation, this is an issue that matters to me, and nobody is willing to let me talk about this, and because they are, and I want to be on their stage, and I want to say something,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and he was so quick to articulate why he did that and what it was always about for him. There was no part of him that associated with the ideas of these people. It was really the fact that he was in the political wilderness. And David, I think, has spent a lot of time talking to the Senator. I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m digging into these because, really, we felt we couldn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t get behind him unless we felt we had a satisfactory answer to these questions, because they matter to us.<\/em><\/p>\n From EIR, we see Gravel drawn to the org\u00c2\u00a0 on behalf of maglev trains.\u00c2\u00a0 (To each their own), and this:\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0At the Oct. 27 EIR Forum in Washington, D.C., Gravel concluded his presentation: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153So, let me rest on that, and just say that I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m delighted to be associated with the LaRouche organization and the wisdom they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve brought forward in their leadership role. And here, I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m taking a page out of their book, suggesting that the leadership of China should take the initiative and bring the Silk Road to the commons of the South China Sea.<\/em>\u00e2\u20ac\u009d III.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0From factnet<\/a>:\u00c2\u00a0 Buckle up, folks. See too<\/a>.<\/p>\n So.\u00c2\u00a0 Will the Larouchies renounce and remove the neo-nazis in the organization?\u00c2\u00a0 Or is this part of the crowd anyways?<\/p>\n IV.\u00c2\u00a0 Hey.\u00c2\u00a0 You know who’s big on “quantative easing”?\u00c2\u00a0 Why, President Donald Trump.<\/p>\n In a series of tweets published Tuesday, Trump said the lower rates along with “quantitative easing” would bolster the economy. See too<\/a>… The Fed is designed to be independent of politics, but Trump has broken with the precedent set by recent presidents by forcefully urging the Fed to cut rates and bring back \u00e2\u20ac\u0153quantitative easing,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d a policy of bond purchases used to stimulate economic growth that was adopted in the aftermath of the financial crisis.<\/em><\/p>\n Funny, of course, because… you know who considers “Quantatitive Easing” heroin to British Banking interests?\u00c2\u00a0 Sure… it’s at odds with… how quantatative easing is like heroin to the bankers<\/a>… and how when the policy is pursued we bring on the New Dark Ages paradigm<\/a>.<\/p>\n So… Will the Larouchies take a stand and fight Trump on his fed push?\u00c2\u00a0 We’ll wait and see if the Trump Hitler posters make the round.<\/p>\n V.\u00c2\u00a0 From A Time to Stir, Columbia ’68<\/a>, Paul LaPorte’s contribution, pgs 200-201: VI.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0Rex W Willard chimes into the “letter to the editor” campaign<\/a>.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0I have been a reader of many political leaders over the last 40-plus years VII.\u00c2\u00a0 So, we see salon refers to larouche as a “left wing cult<\/a>“, oddly\u00c2\u00a0in an article sorting out the history of the\u00c2\u00a0promulgation of “cultural marxism” as a concept of the “far right”.<\/p>\n Do these semantics mean anything?\u00c2\u00a0 \u00c2\u00a0Curiously, in the comments at louis proyect’s blog HH places them on the right<\/a>… a bit counter to an argument he’d had with Dennis King that the post Marxist Larouchies fit in a more idiosyncratic mode than “left” \/ “right”.<\/p>\n And I see Technocracy rolls in again, here HH has Larouche in a lineage from Technocracy, (or maybe springing from the same ideological\u00c2\u00a0fronts) — as I remember the appendix on Technocracy was just a comparison of similarities.\u00c2\u00a0 (“Me for Dictators<\/a>“.)\u00c2\u00a0 Make of it what you will,\u00c2\u00a0the “Technocratics” claim to have dropped Larouche all their literature in the 1960s<\/a>.<\/p>\n Now that Larouche is dead, I suppose I could fall asleep, wake up in 50 years and make a comparison on where the Larouche org sits and where Technocracy, Inc sits.\u00c2\u00a0 Someone plays the game of a youtube video for “What if Technocracy had succeeded<\/a>“, and I guess someone will get around to it with Larouche.\u00c2\u00a0 (Tecnocracy’s youtube selection<\/a> is dried up a tad.)<\/p>\n Beyond all that in comments section, the video of the friendly meeting with the Larouche is interesting.\u00c2\u00a0 In consideration of why he goes to the cultural concerns, I can suggest there’s a play for the audience — a former Columbia University grad student coming out of the left wing protests is unlikely to be taking in Trump — as well it is one constant element in Larouche as they play games of opportunism within American politics.<\/p>\n VIII.\u00c2\u00a0 Jacques Cheminade makes an (American) late night show<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0gag…<\/p>\n Oliver draws short profiles of several of the contenders \u00e2\u20ac\u201d even giving short, hilarious breakdowns of the total noncompetitors like\u00c2\u00a0Jacque Cheminade<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0and\u00c2\u00a0Jean Lassalle<\/a>. Cheminade\u00c2\u00a0once<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u0153accused the queen [of England] of being involved in international drug trafficking\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and has seriously\u00c2\u00a0discussed<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u0153colonizing Mars.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d And Lassalle, seemingly forever clad in an actual black beret, is a character whose \u00e2\u20ac\u0153entire life seems like an episode of\u00c2\u00a0So You Think You Can France,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Oliver jokes.<\/em><\/p>\n In Russian media, Cheminade is claiming a variation of those “mass strike conditions<\/a>“.\u00c2\u00a0 Sure he’ll jump in. IX.\u00c2\u00a0 In case you want to hear some singing at 256.\u00c2\u00a0 Hers’s the Schiller Institute on May 5<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0singing for Italy. X.\u00c2\u00a0 After nine years, a person who’d commented on Kesha Rogers that I’d linked to (somewhat perfunctorily) spots the link and returns to my blog to lay this claim<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0Rogers wasn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t LaRouche and isn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t LaRouche, and didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t agree with the full conspiracy-theorising he\u00e2\u20ac\u2122d gone into; although she\u00e2\u20ac\u2122d attached herself to the LaRouche fanclub<\/em>.<\/p>\n I ask him: And get back the answer: Frankly, none of this is valid.\u00c2\u00a0 I suspect the case is just Kesha Rogers politicking for votes, perhaps compartmentalizing away aspects of Larouchian ideology in favor of “Glass Steagall or Die” and at least some version of “We support NASA”, but the idea that she’s above or beyond the Larouche org in her campaign is certainly a weird one. Or is it not?<\/p>\n Noted on Kesha Rogers, wikipedia has not chimed in on the 2018 campaign<\/a>.\u00c2\u00a0 And ont he wikipedia font,\u00c2\u00a0Oh, they’d hate this correction to “Marxism to Keynesian<\/a>“.<\/p>\n The Left’s pointing on the Mueller Investigation gets compared to larouche<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0from counterpunch, sometime between the release of the summary statement and the redacted report.<\/p>\n XI.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0William Jones is the Washington Bureau Chief for Executive Intelligence Review and a non-resident fellow of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. The article reflects the author’s opinion, and not necessarily the views of CGTN<\/a>.\u00c2\u00a0 <\/em>More from William Jones here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n Webster Tarpley on China<\/a>, for comparison’s sake.<\/p>\n XII.\u00c2\u00a0 Proud legacy he’s got there<\/a>.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0Given the scope of the killings and their chilling efficiency with the machete, we now know that the genocide was not a mere tribal reaction to Habyarimana\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s death. It had been organized for months in advance. Predictably, this has given rise to a great deal of speculation. The recently deceased Lyndon Larouche, perennially obsessed with conspiracy theories,\u00c2\u00a0incessantly proposed an alternative version of the events<\/a>. In his account, Britain\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Prince Philip was the mastermind of this horrid event, given that he was president of the World Wildlife Fund at the time. Larouche claims that, in fact, this particular institution has a more sinister goal: population control, perhaps out of Malthusian motivations (an old conspiracy theory that has many versions). In the years preceding the genocide, the World Wildlife Fund was very active in Rwanda, organizing programs for the protection of gorillas. According to Larouche, under the guidance of Prince Philip, the World Wildlife Fund was actually preparing the Hutu militias for the genocide.<\/em><\/p>\n Over the years, Larouche became a laughing stock because of his outlandish claims, and this is yet another of his outrageous allegations. There is no evidence whatsoever in support of his conspiracy theory regarding the genocide in Rwanda. But, as it usually happens, one of the great dangers of absurd conspiracy theories is that they divert attention from\u00c2\u00a0real\u00c2\u00a0conspiracies. And, as it turns out, there may have been a real conspiracy in the Rwandan genocide. […]<\/em><\/p>\n Thus, the first lesson we can learn from these tragic events is that absurd conspiracy theories (such as Larouche\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s) actually hinder our efforts to arrive at historical truths and consider real conspiracy theories (such as France\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s possible participation in the genocide).<\/em><\/p>\n
\nThen again, the same article begins by making the assertion that Helga Zepp Larouche is well known in America (the premise being that Gravel may not be as well known, so we’ll explain his biography), so… we can maybe take a grain or two of salt.\u00c2\u00a0 (Gravel has other beefs to settle<\/a>.)<\/p>\n
\nI think I found a Nazi in LPAC’s ranks.
\nhttps:\/\/twitter.com\/EgSophie\/status\/1124082789597548556?s=20<\/a>.
\nhttps:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LaRouchePAC\/photos\/a.271622059596228\/1697034393721647\/?type=3&theater<\/a>.
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\n<\/em>\u00e2\u20ac\u0153We have the potential to go up like a rocket if we did some lowering of rates, like one point, and some quantitative easing,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Trump wrote.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nThe problem with my seeking to be instructed by younger radicals was that, at twenty-five, I knew more history than they did at eighteen, and had to keep the greater sophistication on hold.<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0 The radicals, looking far and wide for exemplary militant models, were not only worshipful of Lenin but also half-willing to rehabilitate Stalin and to swallow the most far-fetched claims of Maoists.\u00c2\u00a0 (For instance, that no one was ever executed in Communist China; enemies of the state were only “re-educated.”)<\/em>
\n The student radicals were drawn to whatever felt severe or uncompromising, like guerilla warfare strategy manuals.\u00c2\u00a0 The Liberation School invited all the left splinter groups — the Spartacist League, the Socialist Workers Party — to duke it out for the correct political line.\u00c2\u00a0 Thus, I heard Lyndon Larouche, then calling himself Lyn Marcus, a thin man with a Lenin goatee, put forward the National Caucus of Labor Committee’s position, harsh but not having yet diverged into paranoid claims that Queen Elizabeth was a Zionist agent trying to assassinate him.\u00c2\u00a0 I listened to Paul Rockwell, of Progressive Labor, advocate that we go downtown and try to raise the consciousness of the token-selling clerks by standing beside their booths and engaging them in political discussion.\u00c2\u00a0 I heard proposals for students to make alliances with street gangs.\u00c2\u00a0 Criminals were seen as proto-revolutionaries, acting out against the system.<\/em>
\n If there was anything nonnegotiable in my political beliefs, it was freedom of artistic expression.\u00c2\u00a0 Any pressure to dilute difficult art or make it more responsive to the masses, agitprop, or social realist should be resisted, I thought.\u00c2\u00a0 I knew full well the fate of Babel, Mayakovsky, and Mandelstam, writers ground up in the Soviet machine.\u00c2\u00a0 Hences, I was especially interested in Liberation School sessions on literature.\u00c2\u00a0 There I heard that we need to jettison Dostoyovsky, the writer who had meant the most to me in my teenage years, because he was reactionary; Celine, being a Nazi sympathizer, would of course have to go, although I loved his novels; and Yeats — my beloved Yeats — wasn’t he also right wing?\u00c2\u00a0 Over the side of the boat with him.\u00c2\u00a0 Freud was discredited because he emphasized individual neurosis and not social pathology.\u00c2\u00a0 With the literary ranks denuded, who was left?\u00c2\u00a0 Victor Sarge, mabye.\u00c2\u00a0 Eventually they even banished the seemingly inoffensive psychologist Erich Fromm as a liberal reformer.\u00c2\u00a0 “Reform” had become such a dirty word.\u00c2\u00a0 I remember a headline in the Progressive Labor newspaper: “The Struggle Against Reformism is the Struggle to the Death”.\u00c2\u00a0 I dared not let on that many reformers were still heroes in my eyes.<\/em><\/p>\n
\n<\/em>Ron Wieczorek and the same<\/a>.
\nBruce Todd<\/a>.
\nAnd this<\/a>… propagating the “Mueller did Lyn in” myth.
\nHow long will the letter writing campaign continue, and how long it will take for it to succeed in “vindicating” Larouche, only time will tell.<\/p>\n
\nIn other international bits, the\u00c2\u00a0Citizens electoral council explained<\/a>.\u00c2\u00a0 And here<\/a>.
\nWe see a CEC candidate putting in a good word for an embattled oppone<\/a>nt.<\/p>\n
\nOr, if you’d rather see Marsha Freeman dish about Fusion, a New Jersey state senator has her in<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nSo. Question. When did Kesha Rogers distance herself from anything Larouchian, conspiracy theorizing or otherwise?<\/em><\/p>\n
\nBut to answer your actual question : private conversation. Rogers\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 team hosted some roundtable talks where LaRouche\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s cultists taught us LaRouchism. Rogers herself \u00e2\u20ac\u201c in 2010 \u00e2\u20ac\u201c allowed the LaRouche team to run the meetings but didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t much pipe in herself. And, talking to me one on one after one such meeting, she distanced herself from the weird stuff about the British Royal Family.<\/em>
\nBut the cultists were the people who were running her campaign, and running campaigns is hard. So she let them run the meetings too<\/em>.<\/p>\n