“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.

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 2nd, 2007 at 1:44 am and is filed under The LaRouche Challenge, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.