How it’ll turn out
In August I posted basically this to a message board — the one I’ve posted to in spurts for the last half a dozen years. And had this response:
I would also make the observation that paranoid controlling groups like this, when confronted with a crisis which threatens their core beliefs, either blow up and go away, or they seek to rewrite their (internal) history – sometimes even to the point of denying that previous core beliefs were ever actually held. Problem with Larouches crew pulling this off (which they’d probably like to do) is that there are *outsiders* monitoring things, including our own Howie. Therefor, in order for their rewrite to work…
I saw a group of LYMers huddled about on a street corner card table shrine yesterday. It has been a while since I have seen any, thought that may be more me than them — and undoubtedly they’ve popped in at PSU this school year and last at some point or other. Probably more importantly, it has been a while since I have seen evidence of them, amounting to mass quantities of their propaganda being laid here and there. They stood with the “Impeach Cheney” written on their cardboard — a good bet for the passerbyers, thought a little moldy a message. (It still beats out the Mortgage message?) I was wondering one thing — if they could be polled on Ken Kronberg, they would have what answer? Their history with him is what? Well, they’d probably think I had picked up something from the evil Washington Monthly article, or Who Knows? a suspicion that I’m that Portland area blogger to know exists.
Elliot (Greenspan) hangs around at card tables outside post offices or DMVs occasionally, where he recently had the effrontery and pathetic out-of-it-ness to tell Ken Kronberg’s cousin to join LaRouche “to honor Ken.†You can imagine how that went over.
I suppose there is no contradiction between the crucification that Larouche gave to Kronberg in that daily memo (you know the one), and reportedly in many other forums, and the “To Honor Ken” model. But, about that memo… according to the Larouchie denziens working to affect the wikipedia pages, it is …
The statement about suicide is clearly hyperbole in the “briefing,” not intended to be taken literally. Benton is treating it as if it were a literal recommendation. “Malicious” seems to be the right word for this. —NathanDW 16:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Taking people at their word can’t be called a malicious interpretation. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Clearly just a coincidence, though even the word “jumped” is apparently at issue with them, who prefer the word “fell”.
I encourage those former cadres who are worried about irrelevence to consider how many people have absorbed important discoveries from he writings but still wanted to keep as far away from the movement as possible because of LaRouche’s (let’s be kind) ideosyncracies in leadership style.
The “ideosyncracies in leadership style”, and all that.
Molly, I am sorry for your loss. I don’t know the circumstances of Ken’s death, nor do I know what Lyn is like behind closed doors. Perhaps he is a difficult person. Those of great intellectual insight are such, notoriously. But I know the man as one can know a figure through his public work, and I have been immeasurably enriched thereby. And, in spite of everything, I will be bold enough to recommend that to you, even in your grief.
I have heard, and seen evidence here and there from various briefings, that Jeff Steinberg’s intentions for a post-Larouchian world include the notion of attempting to bring together old members who floated away due to Larouche’s abuses — er “ideosyncracies”, which I suppose means some sort of intellectual parlor game of separating the man’s “ideas” and some vaguely anti-entropy man versus beast ideology and… the man. Should I expect a Kruschev speech blasting away at Stalin? Steve and res republica have, either for his benefit or for the attempted benefit of winning in “those ex-members”, already made that intellectual jump.
Helga Zepp, I hear and seen in one or two writings, has worked to smooth relations with the European org. As with the baby-boomers, the contradiction with Larouche in terms of this:
We cleaned the mess up in Europe by getting rid of the people who wanted to be gotten rid of. They were going anyway. They’d been gone for a long time, they were actually working for enemy agencies, or under the influence of enemy agencies, so we didn’t lose anything in Europe, we just simply acknowledged the fact that they were already long gone and lost. That happens. The enemy had taken them over.
But cross-purposes have to be worked with for multitude of goals. You have the future to think about.
Back to the wikipedia page, it occurs to me that a simple answer has been provided in terms of the Larouchie charge on the Washington Monthly article. If you go to the Ken Kronberg page, you will note that Larouche’s published rebuttal and challenge to that article from this past summer has been provided. You know… Avi Klein = Mossad Agent, the article is a piece to destroy the Hillary Clinton presidential push and part of the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”. So you see, both sides of the story have been provided. It’s just that one side of the story is completely bonkers.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:21 am
If they’re LYMers, these folks with the cardboard signs at the cardtable, they barely know who Ken Kronberg is/was. Almost all the older members have been segregated from the “yutes” very carefully.
Kronberg was teaching a Shakespeare class in Baltimore to the LYM there (a number of whom came to his funeral in Virginia), but it was shut down by a combination of Baltimore NC Larry Freeman, plus the ubiquitous Tony Papert (who went from thinking the world of Kronberg to hating him for reasons Sigmund Freud could probably explain), plus LaRouche himself.
It may have had to do in part with Robert Beltran and his ascendancy as the Shakespeare “expert”–what a joke that is.
In any case, Kronberg had little to do with the yutes after that. The only Labor Cttee members “authorized” to teach the yutes were Jeff and Michele Steinberg, Bruce Director, Harley Schlanger, and Phil Rubinstein–and people who have been following the famous morning briefings recently will notice that Phil Rubinstein has now been attacked by LaRouche for not understanding Kepler the way LaRouche does (who could?).
So I’m guessing Phil’s teaching days are over, for now at least.
Anyhow, this is a roundabout way of saying most yutes don’t know who most Baby Boomer members are–even though Kronberg had been a leader of the org for years. They may have known him as editor of Fidelio….
They will of course know the party line on his death–all Molly Kronberg’s fault (whoever she is–because they’re even less likely to have known her, since, although she was on the NC, she had less and less to do with the org in recent years and nothing at all to do with the LYM).
November 6th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
One of the only disappointments with the dashing away of revinire, whos placement in the organization I understand as lying somewhere in the vast spectrum between being a supporter from the Midwest interested in Scientific inquiry and Fusion who googled onto this site somehow or other on one end AND being Jeff Steinberg on the other end. (Neither, of course, being the truth of that matter.)
He never got around to stating the Larouche line on Ken Kronberg. Though I think he was needling toward that.
I recognize the LYM take is something of ignoring it — on to the Impeachment of Cheney (Popular enough in Portland.. I somehow imagine in California they’d dig in at the Mortgage situation.), but it occurs to me that in the vast panoply of deployments Kronberg will now have to come up. Is there a re-issuance of “Has Your Neighbor Been Brainwashed about Larouche?” (one of the pamphlets pictured in the Washington Monthly — um — physical copy), or does the relentless attacks on the Internet (by way of attacking myspace, mostly but not exclusively) serve the purpose that title did in the earlier age? And do they have their line down pat, and how long would it take to get to them stating either that whoever mentions Kronberg is a Fascist or Brainwashed?
November 6th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
“Helga Zepp, I hear and seen in one or two writings, has worked to smooth relations with the European org.”
Justin: do you have a link or source for this statement? I have a keen, personal interest in finding out what is (really) happening over there.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Rachel, you said:
It may have had to do in part with Robert Beltran and his ascendancy as the Shakespeare “expertâ€â€“what a joke that is.
What’s the joke? I was told Beltran’s given up and he isn’t doing it any longer but you’re sure POd. You keep bringing it up. What’s the story?
November 6th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Earnest One:
Largely in the scope of generic gossip on factnet, but there is a single LPac item which suggests as much I have in mind in the back of my mind. I am more slap-dash and speculative than my own good. But I’ll have to dig a bit.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Justin:
Please do dig, if possible. As stated before, I have a close relative who was a German member for 30 years. The relative supposedly left, late last year, but I have my doubts about a complete break. I fear it may be a cover story.
On the practical side, if it turns out to be a ruse, I will make public my own experiences with that group — experiences in Wiesbaden and Leesburg that might shed considerable light on many issues, including the Duggan tragedy (since they involve threats and extreme coercion).
Note that Michael Hudson (the economist and godson of Trotsky), claims that LaR worked for right wing elements within the US government and that the group took positions in foreign countries (e.g., being anti IMF) in order to attract like-minded people. LaR then recorded his conversations with some of these people, wrote up reports about their positions and activities, and then sold the reports to the US government.
According to Hudson, Ramsey Clark’s role was not to defend LaR, per-se, but to uncover, publicly, LaR’s ties to right wing (i.e., fascist) elements within our own government.
November 7th, 2007 at 9:34 am
For what it is worth, Scott McLemee — who I don’t think has many more points of reference than I do, meaning he probably took it from the same place as I, says the same…
http://crookedtimber.org/2007/10/29/loafing-with-larouche/
One is headed by his wife, who is German and may be in touch with the group of European members who walked out (with quite a lot of money it seems) a few months ago.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Rachel? Wherefore art thou?
Schlanger’s the one you should be after not Beltran and you know it. Keep your eye on the ball instead of setting up straw men.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Justin:
To my knowledge, XLCR from FactNet was the first to mention the fact/rumor that LaR had spoken (or written, in a briefing, etc.) that some ex-members may “be coming home” later this year. XLCR spoke about it as if it was pure delusion (a sane assumption!, at present).
I think this was asserted in late winter, some months after the entire German leadership had either resigned or was purged, en-masse. Wild talk of them making off with a bundle of money (millions) is completely unsubstantiated to my knowledge. Then again, unless you were/are TRULY on the inside it would be hard to know anything with certainty (other than the blatant madness of it all).
As a fairly close reader (and sometime contributor) of FactNet I can’t remember any talk about Helga promulgating the view that German boomers would return to the Mother Ship. As things disintegrate, people (and corporations) often “partner up†forming alliances on the fly, as needed. Perhaps Herr Helga intends on splitting with her hubby (sic) and starting up some “vast†scene on her own in Germany/Europe.
Note that the German (and other European) boomers have started their own website: http://www.solon-line.de (XLCR mentioned this some months ago on FactNet).
The new site says nothing about LaR (big surprise), but the general themes are similar to various core LC ideas. One amusing difference is that they apparently now support the great mathematician Euler, whereas LaR long ago declared him to be an evil fraud.
November 7th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Hi, Miss Anthropy–
Seems to me I’ve mentioned Beltran twice, maybe thrice.
You’re right, Harley is way more pernicious in the scheme of things, not least because he was the “brains” behind the LaRouche Yute Movement. However, Harley hasn’t figured too much in areas of my immediate interest, and it should be obvious what those are–first and foremost, Ken Kronberg’s death.
My only beef with Beltran is that he allowed himself to be courted and wooed, and told he was the Shakespeare “expert,” and allowed himself to be used against Ken Kronberg and a few others. Didn’t ever try to find out what or who he was displacing, or why–or why LaRouche was praising him to the skies and attacking Kronberg and the others for not understanding Shakespeare, poetry, etc. (needless to say, another sphere in which LaRouche is clueless).
Otherwise, Kronberg was critical of Beltran’s directorial approach, for sure, because he thought it was too florid.
But Beltran is by no means the key factor in my concerns. To say the least. If he’s given it up, I’m delighted.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
You know, I was going to respond to Miss Anthropy with the “I think Rachel has mentioned Beltran a total of two or three times” tact, but I thought it reasonable to leave it for her. Anyway, I think I should email this exchange to the resident Star Trek and Beltran fan.
Earnest One: The solon site I had mused about before, wondering if anything could possibly come out of that weird “Larouchianism without the Larouche” attempt at framing an ideology, but the answer is probably not. The basis for my Hegla Zepp comment came largely out of this one item at the L-PAC site from this summer where she pretty well accomodated them in rather friendly terms, along with the vibes of xlcer and the like. I made a quick attempt at finding it, and will make a deeper attempt when I have a spare moment, even as I suspect it will be underwhelming.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Why mention Beltran at all? He’s irrelevant. He’s not the one responsible for Kronberg’s death. He’s a red herring.
The question you should be asking is why Harley and Lyn chased him so hard. They’re the ones who had the master plan.
You should be asking what that master plan was and why they did what they did.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:03 am
Well, Miss Anthropy, if you know, why don’t you tell us? Personally, I imagine the “master plan” was that Beltran had money and celebrity.
Obviously, I never came remotely close to saying Beltran was responsible for Kronberg’s death, so why are you flogging this so hard?
To me Beltran is one of 1,000 predicates in a larger story. In himself, he is irrelevant, as you say. He becomes relevant only insofar as he was used by LaRouche to get at a number of longtime leaders of the organization.
As to Harley, he is not a key player in the larger story of Ken Kronberg, which is the story I’m interested in. He is or was no doubt a key player in the creation of the LYM, which was a very unfortunate turn of events.
But as a heavyweight in the org, Harley doesn’t cut it. Of course he was the guy who went after Hollywood types, inasmuch as he was/is in California so much of the time.
Clearly, Beltran is important to you in a way he is not to me, and you may have insights as to his importance to LaRouche et al. If so, rather than telling me what I should be asking (remember: you and I may not be interested in the same things), why don’t you tell me and the rest of us what you know and what you think?
November 9th, 2007 at 7:39 am
I agree with Rachel that Beltran’s utility came from his celebrity and money. He signed on after watching LaR on cable TV (by his own statement) and Harley most likely saw this as enhancing the organization’s credibility and a lure for new recruits. After all, this was an actor from a well known franchise.
I haven’t heard or seen anything indicating Beltran was used to go after Kronberg, i.e. the new Shakespeare ‘expert’, although it wouldn’t surprise me given the attention he got in the organization from 2001-2004. Beltran has disappeared into the background. The last info I saw was shortly after Kronberg’s death, when he was still doing drama workshops with the LYM. Given the organization’s current state I wouldn’t be surprised if he gave up and left. He got an awful lot of ego stroking in the early days of his membership, but I don’t see that going on now.
Regarding Phil, the LYM site shows a briefing link from 11/7/2007 so evidently he hasn’t been silenced, yet. Neither has Harley. I wonder what it’s like being a boomer in the org today. I wonder if they worry much about becoming a target like Kronberg did.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
You’re both wrong but if you can’t see the forest for the trees I can’t help you. All I can tell you is to dig deeper, if you really want the answers. It’s up to you to pick up the shovel. Sayonara.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
How very dramatic. Do you want to be addressed as “Deep Throat”?
November 9th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
F.ck! Here I tuned in (again) fully expecting to see something of substance.
Miss Anthropy’s latest response is BEYOND impotent — it is vacuous.
Well, to be fair, perhaps there is an “infinitesimal” amount of content. Perhaps the basement LYM team can compute it. Yes, make it a project, complete with colorful “animations”.
November 10th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Scott McLemee — who I don’t think has many more points of reference than I do….
Oh absolutely. Other than compiling an enormous file of unpublished internal LC documents, and knowing a lot about the political context of LaRouche’s pre-LC days, and getting leaked briefings before they appear at FactNet, and interviewing Fred Newman, and being in touch with ex-members, and having Avi Klein and Chip Berlet over to my place for lunch so they could meet and all of us swap information — other than that, sure, I don’t really have any more access or insight at all, hardly.
By the way, it’s not at all the case — per a reference here the other day — that Fred Newman was an influence on “Beyond Psychoanalysis.” Newman had no contact with NCLC until after Mop Up.
November 10th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Until after the Chris White freakout, I mean. rather.
November 10th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Scott:
Fair enough. Actually I should have known better than to post that based solely on where you placed yourself in that Pacifica interview. But back to the point being made: I assume that means you have several more items to explain what Larouche’s wife is doing, and whatever the circumstances out of Europe are, so I will just ping that over to “Earnest One”.
November 10th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I am going to guess that Miss “Deep Throat” Anthropy believes that Beltran was going to be a sock puppet for Harley and become the new ‘face’ of the organization in the US. If that was the plan then it must have fallen pretty flat, given his current invisibility. I think that if s/he really had any info on any of this s/he’d find a way to share it. Hit & run tactics don’t do anything for one’s credibility.
So, to Earnest One – WORD! And if you run across any animated product from the LYM skunkworks on the issue, do link. I am sure it will be very entertaining.
November 11th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Justin: Please do “ping that over…” here, there, or anywhere I can find it without straining to much. Note too that as a site “insider/owner” you have my email address.
MotherSkadi: I will certainly post any and all relevant links. BTW, I think your site is extremely helpful (to the Yutes, and to me, as I enjoy truth and humor).