Oh, mercy me. Where to begin?

I guess it takes a few days for the machine to kick out its speil. Today the thing is FINALLY filled with the brim with items about infrastructure… For instance, the reason the bridge fell is because… um… we haven’t built rail off of Larouche’s blueprint. I will not be looking through them; I note them because of their predictability.
But I must note the new campaign of attacks against Myspace.

It makes perfect sense. Figure that equation I had just formed, which is, my message to the — um — “Robert Beltran stalker”: We, as part of the conspiracy somehow or other, are successfully accomplishing that which the CIA, KGB, and Cuban Frogmen were never able to accomplish. (Though I guess I have to exclude myself. I wasn’t mentioned in the Daily Briefing. Sigh. COME ON!! Give me something here! What is it going to take to be referenced in the Daily Briefing? If I were to endorse the “Draft Al Gore” campaign, would that help you find a good hook? Or am I going to have to retrofit these things by beginning to promote the economic ideas of John Train to pretend that that’s the reference?) Welcome. To the Internet. The now outdated, somewhat utopian phrase “Information Superhighway”.
To operate a functioning totalitarian (or at least heavily Authoritarian) government, one needs to cut off undesirable material at the pass. China has its filters in place, for instance. But. How does one do that, particularly when your entire production of cult literature dissemination, due to the sliding of your printing press into oblivion, must be delivered online — and Online is ALL ONE GOTS?
From the feed:

In light of Murdoch’s many sex-problems, LaRouchePAC proposes the following acronym for his “MySpace”:
Many
Young
Students
Profiled
And
Controlled
Electronically

Wait a minute! NOW THAT’s PROJECTION!!

Now, Larouche is tapping into the well of concern that parents have with myspace, and all parents need to get a good grip on such Internet sites, because there is a dark side lurking with the myspaces of the world — and Larouche is exploiting the incidents of sexual abuse of minors that myspace facilitated. In a previous decade, with the cult in different formation, I would assume that the Myspace attack is about jiggling for change from those concerned with these issues, wanting action to keep the children safe.

This comment was left on this blog over the weekend:

It’s funny that LaRouche is supposed to be such a big visionary but he completely missed the boat on the internet. He didn’t predict it; he didn’t control it; and he didn’t even bother trying to predict its destruction. And its clear that his organization knows nothing about it. That’s what happens when you don’t recruit any members between 1973 and 1999. See also Computron.

(Page linking to Larouche site full of the “Daily Myspace Joke”.)

I note that right after he posted that, before this morning, Larouche had stuck up something on his feed which almost seemed as though it was a straight reply to this comment. I hate to link to his pages, but in this case I can’t just snippet an item or two from a piece that simply must be seen and read to be believed: “On MurdochSpace“. Now THAT one’s a doozy. And I say that even as I note that he has reshuffled any number of items I have encountered from previous efforts and placed them awkwardly into this thing. It really does read like this.
So there he is, positing himself as a Great Captain of Industry in the 1950s — he’s a regular Forrest Gump in terms of standing at every historically important event, ain’t he? And so ahead of his time! At all times! On everything! Why — he predicted Myspace back in the late 1950s.
So, taking the summary of facts presented by Charles and Kathy into account, the McGoohan TV series, “The Prisoner,” is to be seen as a computer-age parody of the plot of George Orwell’s “1984.” “MySpace” is to be recognized as “Big Brother” Rupert Murdoch’s electronic “empire.”The object of the operation is to transform young-adult human beings into Orwellian zombies the type sufficiently self-degraded by this processing to become sincere devotees of what the Beaverbrook intelligence empire produced as the intellectual spawn Murdoch represents.

I suppose there might be something to this:

A society which thinks in any form of digital-computerese, is a society of zombies as the living dead strolling, dripping, onto the shore, from out of the sordid muck of a “black lagoon.”
To which I can only respond with: WOOT! Or… something. I have avoided a lot of Internet culture of this sort. I don’t really know much silly Internet lingo besides “woot”. And “LOL”.
It may be telling what I guessed he was getting at when the commenter asked why I had not brought up the “Myspace Joke of the Day” feature. There was this online and passed on joke of “Super Powers You Wish You Had” — one of which the power to get Larouchies to shut up. A simple joke, mind you. But one that makes Larouchies aware they are jokes to society at large.

Myspace has been deemed the weak link in terms of demonization of Internet content — something which allows for a sense of Intellectual Superiority. Maybe there is something problematic with the way myspace works, and its assault on the senses. Get the Larouchie to absorb that, and accounts such as this one will not process.

Back to that infamous Daily Briefing. The one that doesn’t mention me. (SOB). Posted to the FACTNet board, and promised here on this blog, and I realize I am skiddadling past some other important parts of that post to focus on one thing of interest to me:
Second Comment: The target audience for this memo is the “yutes”–the LYM. Not the Baby Boomer members.
Evidence:

1. It was buried in the Operations Bulletin section of the Morning Briefing–Boomer members don’t read this religiously, but LYMers do.
I’ll wager any number of Boomer members missed the “Memo” completely.

2. It targets FactNet–which is also read by (and sometimes posted on by) LYMers. I doubt that any Boomer members post on FactNet, but more of them are reading it these days, as it gets more exciting. Still, FactNet is definitely a yute magnet. (It’s not American Family Foundation, by the way.)

3. It carries on about someone stalking Robert Beltran–not a fact that would interest Boomer members, who don’t give much of a hoot about Beltran. He is strictly a yute-related personage, elevated by LaRouche.

4. The reference to gossip circles who need to be quelled is instructive–because this is after all an internal memo. So we conclude that the gossiping going on is internal, and that some of the leadership is concerned.

I now must explain something about that last Larouche related post of mine. I posted those youtube clips with the same spirit as to the idea that what did in the Soviet Union was The Beatles. In the cloistered world of Larouche, the only item I linked there that was not completely subversive was the Leonard Bernstein peformance of Beethoven… and I wouldn’t be surprised if that were a no-no. Duke Ellington, the various rock bands, the clip of Chris Elliott’s take off on William Shatner’s take off of Elton John’s take off of Ray Bradbury, the earliest Science Fiction movie ever produced? Dangerous stuff.

That something else is whatever last vestige of personal fun or interest a member has which connects him or her to the real world. Thus for older members from the 1960s it was important to denounce the Beatles as a British run operation. For black memebrs especially, any connection to jazz was taken away and attacked. AS you go through the years you will find that whatever struck Lyn’s fancy while watching TV which was popular among THE YUTES HE WANTED had to be attacked as evil and something which if continued to be enjoyed or known about would cause the human race to spiral into the hands of the oligarchy and HELL.

In the LC you begin to develop something like an “approved” list of behaviour based on what Lyn enjoyed. When I would walk through any regional office or the national office it seemed that everyone was smoking a pipe like Lyn did at the time. Since your time was taken 24/7 by the cult, a rare day off had people sneaking off to do something they enjoyed like a movie. Even then you would hear about a movie which was on the approved list based on whether security said it was a movie Lyn enjoyed or revealed the oligarchy.

I am juggling many audiences, trying to figure out how anything I post here might be received by different forces.

…………………………..

The other aspect of the memo:

Ironically, while LaRouche claims that others are exploiting “the tragic death of Ken Kronberg” the ENTIRE purpose of this memo is rip apart Kronberg and threaten those people who are grieving over his death–the same people in the organization who are in turmoil over Ken’s death. Rather than memorialize Ken in a loving way, and respond to the turmoil and grief in a way that a loving person would, with compassion, LaRouche rampages against Ken, essentially saying, “you are idiots if you mourn him, those people writing about him on Factnet and elsewhere, don’t know him, here is the truth, we will prove to you that you and he are losers.” According to LaRouche’s memo, Ken should have fallen on his sword years ago, but instead, according to the memo, Ken looted LaRouche by making the LaRouche PACS pay their bills for printing. 

So I watched the William Shatner rendition of Elton John’s Rocket Man, a sort of epochal pop cultural kitsch moment, off of “the You Tube”.  I find myself wondering about the audience. The audience probably just as yet do not know the significance of what they were witness to, so you may excuse a little flat-footedness in terms of reaction.  Still, if I were sitting in the audience I would not know what my proper and expected response would be. If I were to start laughing, would I be kicked out of this science fiction convention?  Am I surrounded by William Shatner uber-fans who take him so seriously that they would give me the stink eye if I acted with anything less than reverence? Is this a situation where everybody around me would be having the same tight-lipped close-to-the-vest can’t say anything reaction, ie: we are all in the same boat, wondering if we are the only ones?  It is a sort of mind-game William Shatner has everyone in.
The Chris Elliott take off is upstaged in popularity and pop culture cachet by the Family Show Stewie take-off. The Family Show is a horrible television show, sort of distilling the essence of the worst aspects of The Simpsons without the benefit of the mediocre to excellent aspects of The Simpsons.  Further, judging by youtube comments, there is a whole generation who believe that the Family Guy invented the mocking of William Shatner’s Rocket Man send-off.  Such is the way of the world, I suppose.

Hm.  Chris Elliott does William Shatner does Elton John does Ray Bradbury?  Derivatives of derivatives.

Pull a shopping cart into line behind a toddler (sitting in her mother’s shopping car). The toddler thinks that she can slide her fingers into the open grate spaces of my cart. She can’t — because her fingers are too fat — but I slide the cart closer to her so that she can reach over and try.

Mom doesn’t really notice.

……………………………….

But that was a few years’ ago.
So, yesterday I was doing some supermarket shopping, and I was behind another pre-speaking toddler in the back of a shopping cart. He stared at me. He found my vision fascinating, such that he was compelled to pry his head over a bit whenever his dad obstructed his view of me. I have noted that most people in such a situation tend to throw the child a funny face. I have come to think of this as a insulting to the child, and have decided that the best tact has to be to respond to the child in kind — thus, I affected as close to the same expression as the child, slid my head a bit askew, and stared right back at him.

The problem comes in with the dad, who every so often looked back toward me, seeing what his kid was staring was, at which point I had to resettle back into a normal expression. After a few glances backward, and at the first immediate opportunity, the dad pushed the shopping cart forward far enough that his kid and creepy-looking me would no longer be engaged in this staring-tango.

There is this manner in which the act of a toddler staring at a stranger reveals something about human nature, undiluted. It spews forward into the paradox of the “Purity” of childhood: as adults, we have become conditioned to be polite to a certain degree — we are not going to stare agasp at somebody who appears to be strange to us. A toddler has no such predilections, and thus anybody who appears strange — slightly outside their scope of what a person should look like — is a fascinating subject to stare at and is immediately noticed. I am an object; not a subject. Where this goes forward in the child’s shuffling of how People are Different, in terms of tolerating cultural diversity and the like, is met with an awkward duality — anecdotal evidence from children suggesting they can be the most open-minded and accepting peoples on Earth (undiluted by received prejudice) and the most narrow-minded and non-accepting (not taught as yet to think outside their narrow experiences). How am to interpret the toddler staring at me — and what is his thought process? Will he make love, or will he make war, if given half a chance?

…………..

Okay, I just realized the complications that arise with using that expression in relation to the toddler.  Ah well.

… but, the cabal in the boiler-room in Loudon won’t let me.

I sense that we have arrived at that point where the creators of the “Daily Briefing” have decided to cut that Gordian Knot and treat their internal daily briefing memos in such a manner to acknowledge the external readers of said.

The latest excretions from such sewers as Dennis King, the American Family Foundation’s FactNet website, a new website run by Star Trek groupie and Robert Beltran stalker Christine Wellman, and other droppings from John Train’s salon

God damned it. I am insignificant after all. The best I can think of where I fall into line in that is that these posts are “dropping from John Train’s salon” — which fits the bill of when I was seemingly obliquely referenced as a “gutter outlet” of “Wall Street Fascist John Train”.

No disrespect for the “Star Trek groupie and Robert Beltran stalker”, but compare technorati stats, the higher the authority the more significant linkings figure, the lower the rank the more viewed the blog:

I’m like Rodney Dangerfield here — Just can’t get no respect. Then again, my numbers inflated off of a London Telegraph posting to a post about John Edwards and a well-traveled sports blog linking to a post about Greg Oden — while “Larouche Watch” has to rely off of the drawing power of Larouche. So I guess I will just have to toss the humbling words of “As far as I am concerned, Skull and Bones is a hero, as in Benton” and “in my view-yes, you are having an effect, and a salutary one” and shake my heads in the eternal infinitisimal of infinitisimals. The Larouchians in the boiler room in Loudon refuse to acknowledge my existence. Oh, why, oh why, do the fates mock me so?

continue the obsessive campaign of LaRouche haters to exploit the tragic death of Ken Kronberg, a man they never knew, and whose life was dedicated to fighting the stupidity they represent.

Let me tell you a story. I do not know when this story begins, or where the best part to join the story would be.
Actually, let me take a moment and just listen to a rock band for a few minutes to clear my head.
Okay. How about some jazz for a short spell?

Okay, fumbling around for a beginning of a story.

There was this blog community or other who was having trouble and getting annoyed by a sudden spurt of Larouchian commenters. He asked the question “WTF?”, at which point somebody provided a link to this blog. At the same time, somebody I used to know, teaching at a University, answered the question of what exactly those Larouche idiot a-holes were by providing a link to this blog. At the same time a college journalist found a comment made at this blog from a recently exited disgruntled ex-Larouchian, and I ended up helping guide her to him for the purposes of a story. I had made it a habit of posting forward comments from ex-Larouchians, thinking it absolved me somewhat for a sin of treating the cult a bit kookily and benevolently (an example of sorts: here), thinking it did the ex-Larouchian good to vent their frustrations, but never quite realizing that the small act of providing a platform for such was a fairly important psychological service for them.

Still, I felt I was cheating the peoples who determined me to be a source for things Larouche. I was not. I decided I would become such a thing, for a short spell, and then move on. Thus, I wandered through streams of old news articles, a few chapters of old books, and pieced together what was something of a substitute wikipedia article, endevoring to splice it together onto a separate page, and let that be — more or less — the end of it. Call me a source, I made myself into a source, of sorts — and that’s all I have to say.
But before I could leave the topic alone, some Larouchians strung me along for a spell, and I was obligated to respond — knowing full well any exchanges were going to be two individuals speaking two different languages. After a while, I simply became weary of the topic, wanted to move the blog back to things electoral and political and sane.

I cannot say I left the topic of Lyndon Larouche alone. And herein lies a key moment in this story, where my concern for some guy I never knew comes into the picture. But first let me take an intermission and listen to some rock band.

Okay. It was during this month that I was leafing through one of those inane Larouche pamphlets, one of those things that Larouchians abandon in bulk at the end of their card-table shrine duties. Understand, I knew Larouche was imparting on his “LYM” hatred of the Baby-Boomer generation. But this was starkly manifested in this odd assortment of “Historic Internet Broadcast Transcripts” and ridiculous articles. What I saw was this strange adulation of the Youth Movement at the same time as heavy-handed baby-boomer bashing, on all fronts. And I noted that the “LYM”ers were being referenced as “leaders” and were mouthing words disparaging of baby-boomers.
Now then. Deep breath. How about another rock song? Okay. A goofy send-up of one of William Shatner’s sillier moments?

A rather simple dynamic popped into my head while seeing this dichotomy in play in such sharp relief, something which I suppose I would have realized if I had thought about for a moment based on what I already knew by way of outsider accounts of the “Cadre Schools”. The baby-boomers in that cult (and I have the history down: it all starts in the late 1960s — the coming of age of the baby-boomers) must really be being treated like absolute crap! It looks to all the world, mind you — the message is inherent in this stupid collection of propaganda, no insider information needed — as though they have been deemed disposable waste by Larouche.

And that was where I sat when Ken Kronberg, a man I never knew who had involved himself with a man I harbored a disgust toward, committed suicide. I received word by pursuing the FACTNet board, name either not mentioned or registering with me. And I did not know what I was supposed to do with that. I had slid myself into a fairly strange spot with this blog — tied into Larouche just enough that I had to acknowledge something just happened, but having nothing much to say about it. At the same time, I had that gut reminder of my observation from the month earlier — when I learned to read their literature from the vantage point of stuff meant for the consumption of their membership.
There is nothing more dangerous than a little knowledge, and that is what I possessed with regards to a man I did not even know the name of in what was clearly a cult, one which I did not really know the mechanics for.

So I drum forward with ramblings on Ken Kronberg, regardless. Ken Kronberg’s family lists my blog on their memorial website. I make various stabs on understanding his life and what he was all about. And the background of Larouche’s Internal Memos — leaked to King, leaked to xlcer, leaked to Benton, absurdly referenced by a Larouchian here as at first “not credible” and then on to “stolen documents” with another Larouchian citing them as “I don’t see what’s wrong with them” — confirmed that observation from a month earlier. For that matter Larouche’s published materials on Kronberg
managed the same thing.
I found the situation haunting. And there was this thought that crosses my mind “So. What are you going to do about it?” Occasionally I have vivid enough dreams that I wake up in the morning and the meaning of the dream, that which my psyche is telling me, makes itself clear as a brick on the head. More often than not, the message boils down to “Drop It”. I had a dream which centered on Larouche, the only such dream I have ever had. The message was the opposite — “Don’t drop it.” My conscience was not going to allow me to gingerly wander away from this.
Should I proceed with the story? Or should we all watch an ancient movie?

There was this moment in which I felt I had done my due diligence, in which I could severe ties to the affair. But then Larouche himself egged me on. That would be the “Wall Street Fascist John Train” “gutter outlet” reference, which so far as I could make out — since it pertained to “blogs” and since the number of such blogs was, roughly, two, meant ME, baby.

King and others who know nothing about the financial relationship between the LaRouche political movement and PMR claim that the movement “looted” PMR to ruin. As usual, bullshit spews from John Train’s overpaid plagiarist.
In the interest of dispelling such bullshit circulating among gossip circles internationally, some simple facts are provided here for internal informational purposes.

I had assumed a somewhat simple and straight-forward equation of what happened with PMR even before encountering the “official story” from the “anti-Larouche” grapevine. But it strikes me that I could easily lose myself in the thickets with this, and be diverted from some even simpler equations. Consult your Larouche literature, and such stuff as this will pepper the end-printed run of every publication, (perhaps with the possible exception of Fidelio?), from the pens of the LYMers, and from their newly transplanted mind from Larouche:
Aren’t you tired of wanting to die? Wallowing, wasting away here on Earth, until you run out of breath? That’s how Baby Boomers now live.

My understanding of the situation springs from THAT wellspring. Presumably the financial dealing of PMR have been investigated — and we will get to the bottom of the “fictitious capital”, the details will coming out shortly. Presumably the boiler room or basement of headquarters in Loudon will stick to their story — a story that, at any rate, if taken at face value would still leave them in between a rock and a hard place in terms of encroaching Investigations. Flash before me a shiny object, and I still see what is behind that shiny object. So I can skip a few items from the memo and go directly to:
b~~~~Simple Fact: The same AFF Factnet website which now stars Dennis King, the pathetic sexually obsessed Paul Kacprzak, and a host of LaRouche haters claiming that they represent Ken Kronberg’s legacy, targeted PMR for financial warfare destruction in 2004, claiming that by destroying the company, the LaRouche political movement would be destroyed.

Dennis King has posted … maybe twice … or thrice. One of them to try to gin up the cause for affecting wikipedia articles, something which seems to have fallen on deaf ears. If Paul Kacprzak (a google search reveals he provided a highly quotable quote for the Washington Post “NO Joke” article of a few years’ back) is around themsparts, he is safely behind a psuedonym, and I don’t much care. But I know what posts they are referring to, gleaned when I looked over the vast message board. The answer is a sort of “yes and no”. The conspiracy starts and ends with the never-followed-up suggestion to “alert the other clients” that they are dealing with a business with stronger ties to Larouche.
Say… Looky here, the nefarious Dennis King provided us with it in quick short-hand … which disappoints me, because it means that our boiler-room cabal probably did not do any work to arrive at this bullet point.
And, naturally, that thicket obscures the larger story.

Hm?

A handful of years ago, I was waiting in a full room full of my fellow prospective Jurors, wondering if maybe I shouldn’t have fished around for a copy of the ultimate “Get out of Jury Duty” book to read in waiting — Our Enemies in Blue.

After showing us a video which showed an elderly-ish woman going through her duty of Jury Duty, interspersed with the stories of the Defendant and Plantif going to court, which ended with all three parties saying “It didn’t matter how the result came out.  Just that the process was served,”, a sentiment I found difficult to imagine for whomever was the losing party in the court case — and the video might have been more interesting if that ending had been shown (though, I suppose, that would have missed the point being instilled in us)…

the woman went through a long and pointless time-filler through procedural issues, the time-filling designed as much to provide something slightly less boring than the boredom of staring at a blank wall for however long she gave the spiel.

At one point she directed our attention to the vending machines, suggesting that if we were hungry or thirsty, there were Frito-Lay and Mars and Pepsi and Coke products available for our coins.

One thing popped out at me as a little bit odd.

“And, for you Bottled Water fans, there is bottled water available in those machines.”

Bottled Water fans?  I never heard that phrase before in my life.  She delivered three or four sentences on the availability of bottled water, and how bottled water fans had it immediately there for their pursual.  It was that type of talking.
Pepsi has just recently had to admit the obvious, that which we all already knew.  Their brand of bottled water is tap water.  It is a joke which has been delivered around me through this long era of bottled water fandom, and if I had a nickel for every time I have heard somebody joke “on the square” about Bottled Water being tap water priced upward, I would have enough money to have wasted on bottled water for the past few years.

I suppose that woman is still there, delivering daily directions to potential jurors, and directing all bottled water fans to the bottled water — as they schedule their next weekend for their Bottled Water Fan Convention, which I think is the same venue as the “Watching Paint Dry” Convention, and “Convention of Dry Toast Eaters”.

I am a little disappointed in Lyndon Larouche.  I was expecting his pump to have been filled to the brim with materials that flogs the Minnesota bridge collapse.  After all, this at least fits the Larouche grind, and at least does not seem as contrived to float as a “mission” than the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shooting kick against the evils of video games — which was contrived on multiple levels, not the least of which the issue was nowhere on any person’s mind whereas references on where America’s infrastructure come to mind anytime we pass over a bridge.  Maybe I will just have to wait until Monday to see a cluster of about 40 items.  I do not know what is taking him so long.  Is he losing a step in pivoting to current events?  What kind of crisis mongerer is he?
As it is, he sticks a few spokes into the celebration of Russian Infrastructure Production, and then there’s the great question:
The question still remains: Why does Rohatyn hate LaRouche’s longstanding call for an FDR-style economic recovery?

I don’t know.  Larouche has decided to attach Rohyatyn to the Dodd – Hagel Infrastracture Bill.   The headline:  Senators Hagel and Dodd Fall Into Rohatyn’s Anti-FDR Trap.  Tellingly enough, Larouche manages to exonerate Hagel from the proceedings, and leaves Dodd as being in league with the forces of Rohyatyn, the — um — Nazi, and by Nazi I mean International Banker Holocaust Survivor.  LaRouche commented, “Hagel has a good heart, but has been misadvised. He doesn’t understand economics yet, the kind of economics that rules the real world.”
That really is a pretty interesting little dichotomy he is throwing up there.  Why the hell does he not suggest that Chris Dodd has a good heart?   I suspect the answer lies within the biography of his father, Thomas Dodd.  Look up and down the wikipedia article, and see if you can figure out what a Royatan – Dodd conpiracy would be all about.
……………………………………………….

I can’t believe you are indulging in this travesty. Do you get paid in money, sex or drugs?

A Larouchite asked that to another blog, found on the sidebar, easily identifiable as — really the only other blog converged on this topic.

Drugs and Sex.   Drugs and Sex.  Drugs and Sex.  This brings me to a question — the drugs part first of all, and I will get to the sex part in a second and weave money into the equation.  So here is my question: Who’s afraid of High Times Magazine?

Well, I am to a small degree.  It’s a magazine that elicits a certain amount of snickering.  My opinion on the issues of drug legalization and criminalization are irrelevant in the context of this post, so it’s best to side-step them.  All I will really say is that I do not really find desirous a nation of pot heads, and refuse to celebrate the drug in any way.  Curiously, I have never actually looked at a physical copy of High Times magazine.  I don’t know what the lay-out is like, and am ignorant of how it weaves together somewhat contradictory components in its mission: it’s serious and not serious at the same time, high minded in defending drug usage and civil liberties inherent in protecting same, at the same time as jerky with Cheech and Chong esque humor.  On the other hand, I lost some respect for the magazine when I read that they endorsed John Kerry in the last election.  This strikes me as against their narrow editorial focus — a Matt Taibbi discussion with Drug Enforcement Agents working for a Kerry victory because it would bring them back to the good old days of Clinton pops into my mind.  But I am not going to tell High Times magazine how to do their job, and they can do whatever the heck they want.

High Times magazine is the source of a few articles from Chip Berlet and a single article from Dennis King on Lyndon Larouche — the narrow focus being coverage of his old “National Anti-Drug Coalition” and its place within the larger anti-drug movement.  Mention either of the two to a Larouchite, or even bring up background information on Larouche, and they will conjure up Berlet or King and attach them to High Times Magazine, seemingly suggesting that British Oligarchs or John Train or whomever placed them to some high editorial role at the magazine, smugly assured that that finalizes the point, that that permanently discredits Berlet and King.

The High Times Reader, a collection of various articles through High Times history, publishes a Chip Berlet article on the “National Anti Drug Coalition”, which has that classic generic name, easily undistinguishable from any number of other anti-drug organizations.  It posited the organization as being an effective in to ally with police organizations, and of course a good money magnate, and ultimately a means to attract black Americans concerned with drug use in the inner-city.

When the US Labor Party perceived it had stumbled across a gold-mind issue, it went into high gear.  The call for the National Anti-Drug Coalition in the July 10 issue of New Solidarity was accompanied by an endorsers list of over 120 community leaders, legislators, union leaders, and clerics.  The founding convention of the group was set for September 29, 1979, in Detroit’s Cobo Hall.  As a warm-up for the September meeting, the US Labor Party scheduled a series of state and city meetings of anti-drug forces, including an annual awards banquet for the Illinois Anti-Drug Coalition, a neat rabbit out of the hat piece of organizing since the Illinois Coalition had only recently been invented by USLP cadre.  At first several prominent political, civic, and religious leaders were lined up to appear at the Illinois Awards Banquet, but as word of the Larouche connection spread — he was the featured guest speaker — people began to break off.

Which is the way of things.  A similar set of circumstances happened when Larouche ended up taking control of an Earth Day Event at New York’s City College in 1970.  In the case of this Anti-Drug Banquet, it gave Larouche an opportunity to ratchet up the charges of nefarious conspirators out to destroy Larouche, and drug-kinged conspirators at that.

I suspect that part of the anti-drug message he has woven slides right along his anti-video game message.  College students look around at their lives and decide that either they or their fellow roommates are wasting time, and desirious of bigger and better things IMMEDIATELY.  Larouche sells the “World Historical Figures” scheme, and they run off to man card-table shrines for the next thirty years of their lives.  But at least they get the opportunity of feeling intellectually superior to their baby-boomer Pothead Parents’ generation and their contemporary generation of pothead peers — who, after all, seem to have no interest in creating a Renaissance, and do not appreciate this great classical music that they are being pumped with.  It is a neat little hooky meme.

Anyway, this Chip Berlet written High Times published article suggests a clue as to some of the troubles that Larouche – related articles have had in laying out basic background information as the years piled on.  What is the shorthand way to slide some details of the Chris White story into a quicky article about a nutty remark made during, say, the 1984 Democratic Party Primary run?  From a rambling Larouche speech, published in the much maligned High Times, something which supposedly had to do with how the forces of Rockefeller or the combined forces of the KGB and CIA or whomever the enemy was at the time were working against them, but which ended up conjuring up the classic Twilight Zone episode which ends when the Human realizes that the book “How to Serve Man” is a cookbook.  I think I’ve published this before — at any rate, published the account from the New York Times writer watching Larouche comment on a video taped session of his “deprogramming *” (see “Part Two”), but that is part of my point here: How does one go about republishing it over and over again in the course of intermittently covering Larouche?  It is background information that floats away, replaced with — say– the “Queen of England” reference.
“How do you brainwash somebody?  Well, first of all, you pull a psychological profile or develop one in a preliminary period.  You find every vulnerability of that person from a psychological standpoint.  Now the next thing you do is you build them up for fear in males and females of homosexuality, aim them for an identification with anal sex, their mouth is identified with fellatio.  Their mouth is identified with the penis — that kind of sex, and with women.  Womanhood is the fellatio of the male mouth in a man who has been brainwashed by the KGB; that is sucking penises.”

Larouche went on to claim that the programming played upon guilt fears about masturbation and homosexuality and forced the person being programmed to engage in degrading acts.  According to Larouche, the programmers would show the victim a picture of a man performing intercourse with a sheep.  “Wouldn’t you like to do that?  How about this dog?”  The key to the technique was summed up by Larouche thusly: “What brainwashes is the victim’s knowledge that he is degrading himself in order to avoid pain.  It’s not the pain that brainwashes, it’s forcing the victim to run away from the pain by taking the bait of degrading himself.  This persistent patter of self-degradation, self-humiliation, is what essentially accomplishes the brain-washing.”

The preceding paragraphs are something that one should keep in mind if and when they see Larouche followers out in force with their stupid and juvenile “Dick Protector” (Point to Condom) promotion, rallying for the impeachment of Dick Cheney and against the Synarchist controlled Democrats.

A question is raised about what ever happened to the National Anti Drug Coalition. What happened to it is what happens to every thing which involves Lyn. A rationale idea of being against illegal drugs become the irrational vanity project of Lyn. Along the way it is used to make as much money as possible via contributions, sales of Dope Inc books and subscriptions to a magazine. The contacts at the card table shrines are called back for subs to the magazine “War on Drugs”. This leads to another call about culture and the drug lobby so we hit them for the Schiller Institute. Lyn is hidden like a crazy grandfather in the basement when all of this is going on.

Next we do something very subtle in contacting candidates and putting a score card in the magazine for a few issues. Of course, Lyn tops the field. Next comes we “boil” the sub list to get money for Lyn’s presidential run. If you blow off some people it is an acceptable loss for a few reasons.

-Hitting the jackpot with some big money or loans will more than make up for the loss if some subscribers. Besides, they will be called back in a few months anyways over and over until they change their phone numbers.

-You really in retrospect do not lose money on the subscription you sold at a card table shrine because you never mail it out in the end.

………………………………………..

Great moments in message board discussions, and add it to how the “National Anti-Drug Coaltion” funnels money in…:

– Let all admit that Lyn is one of the most voluminous rhetoricians in all history.

–  I admit to no such thing. I think it is nonsense – and that ex-LaRouche people still have rocks in their heads.  Moreover, it is probably more likely that LaRouche (or some member of his con-artist team) have simply written a computer algorithm for producing un-artful prose.

– I didn’t say it was any GOOD— I just said it was voluminous.

AND

– Does anyone have an economic model that accounts for the continued existence of LaR and his group?

— Here ya go:

Perhaps Lyn had a brainstorm and refashioned the Marxist equation s/c+v which originally meant surplus value/constant capital + variable capital to become surplus to Lyn/looting of constant capital from PMR and World Comp + the “vig” he gets on fleecing creditors and not paying members their stipends.
………………………

Some stuff.

Ron Paul smothers his french fries in ketchup.

Ketchup.

He ends up eating more ketchup than french fries.

Is he full at the end?