It has been a full months since I have made a comment about your friend and mine, Mr. Lyndon Larouche — the essentially irrelevant but still fascinating little man. I have meant to do so, but then thought a month would make a good interval right about now. (Though, now I probably will have to scan back to see if I find anything. The essay which suggests that hyper-linking is a sign of cultural decline entitled “The Noun Generation” promises hilarity.)

I did make one brief mention, and when I do that I always refer to “Landon LaRoach” as a means of not drawing unnecessary attention. But that is just a quirk I’ve picked here, only mildly interesting, I assume.

In the back of my mind, I have had the thought that the anniversary of the death of Kenneth Kronberg will have the folks in the boiler room in Loudon churning something out. Sure enough, I see that “eaglrbreak” addresses this matter on factnet — and thus this item of importance to add to whatever collection of documents you might be compiling…

….

Message date: 4/19/07

Dear Lyn,

I am writing to beseech you to break your silence on the
death of Ken Kronberg, and say something that recognizes
Ken’s extraordinary worth as a human being. Indeed, he was
one of the finest men I have ever known. My [spouse] and
I long looked to him, as to Graham, as a mentor, a
beacon of dedication and intellectual integrity, and a
friend. Whatever errors in judgment he may have made,
especially in recent years–and who among us has not made
mistakes?–have to be considered within the context of Ken’s
life as a totality.

If you have reason not to make a public statement, then
I plead with you at least to send Molly and Max a private
message of condolence. Whatever one thinks of Molly
personally and politically, one can still give
Ken’s family support and encouragement at this time of
searing grief.

With best regards,
NAME WITHHELD

From: PGM::IF_ 19-APR-2007 00:18:45.83
To: XXX,@DIS:NEC,WIE,HSE
CC: IF_
Subj: reply

TO:ssw,@DIS:NEC,WIE,HSE
FROM:LAR ” Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. ”
CC:HZL
SUBJ: rely to xxx
12:03 AM 4/19/2007 EDT

My stated policy is the only acceptable policy
at this time. The reasons for this are known
to Nany (sic) and Molly, in addition to a handful of
relevant others. It is the only correct policy.

I am reasonably certain that you have no
understanding of what the considerations actually
are; but, sometimes that is both the knowledge
and responsibility that responsible persons
involved must bear.

………………………………………..

The British… Now that I just scanned the whole mass of “Thread #4”, I see a comment to the blaming Larouche’s Britain – obsession on That Worldy Affair his first wife had — details I am barely interested in.

As non-sensical as the Larouche literature becomes as it passes its surface issues and causes of some popular use, it is explainable — in terms of what if not exactly why — in a certain light. To address the lasting stray points which stick with me (most just dissolve on impact) made by various Larouchite commenters here, there, and elsewhere — and for that matter popular conceptions of those that are not Larouchites and peering into this corridor — [a comment made somewhere off a blog entry on Larouche asking “Have you ever actually read one of those pamphlets? It’s basically the Protocols of the Elders of Zion” … hm. Maybe. Not quite. Source material is shared, I suppose.)

The matter is that all things British (and British is the source of all Evils) = codeword for Jew. Hogwash, the Larouchites will say. Sure. I can take this one at his word. British equals British. So Larouche’s propaganda, or worldview, places at its centerpiece strong denunciations of the British Empire. Leave the codewords to actual code words, your Locust Funds and your Synarchists. Granted, the Synarchists appear to be joined at the hip with the British Empire, but at this point –

Codewords? What codewords? Who said anything about Codewords? British = British!!

It is hereabouts the commentor at “Stormfront”, joining the great battle against the British, at “Stormfront” can chime in to proclaim that Larouche has “Love for the White Race in Spades”. (Which, without reading any part of it, tells you all you need to know about the book he was offering to the other “Storm-front”ers by Larouche on “Christian Economy”.)

I was reading an unremarkable book about the American government’s war planning and manuevering in the years prior to Pearl Harbor — recommending only in as much as it is an important piece of history to grip onto. The name Beaverbrook was mentioned one time during the 300 pages — from the vantage point of American pre-war preparedness against Nazi Germany — and in salvaging the decimated Great Britain, not particularly important. From a different place, I assume Lord Beaverbrook has somethin — how much more important, I do not know. In the vantage point of Larouchian history, a figure worthy enough to have in your cut-and-paste file — though, I have always assumed it was for the crude sexual reference. But, you know, he was a figure in the British War Effort and… all that…

So, anyway, Hitler’s propaganda was focused on the evils of a plot with Industrial Bankers and that British Empire (which he as in the process of destroying, and was also the only European power that was holding its fort down against the German War Machine). To what end does this bring Larouche, I can always only offer up the “What” — the “Why” always strikes me as kind of … elusive. I would have to parce out lines of Fantasy lives to get to that.

Anyway… Of interest, a subtle jab at my point, a press conference held by various Members of Congress (set up by Alcee Hastings of Flordia) and, question asked to a reporter for The Economist — Edward Lucas — on February 20:

MARINO: Hi, Mr. Lucas. I’m Paul Marino with EIR News. I’d like to ask you why should the United States restart the Cold War with Russia? I think it’s very dangerous to do that. Remember, Putin has offered us an updated version of Reagan’s SDI. He’s also offered us some interesting
nation building projects in the Bering Straits. With all their internal problems, we have something that’s verysimilar. We have very similar strategic interests. So why should we begin another confrontation and encirclement with Russia, because, Mr. Lucas, most Americans remember how World War I and World War II were started by the British Empire, and we don’t want to…

LUCAS: Sir, are you from EIR? Is that Mr. LaRouche’s paper?
MARINO: That’s what I said when I introduced myself.
LUCAS: I thought…

………………………………….

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 at 4:52 pm and is filed under The LaRouche Challenge. 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.