After their phenomenal electoral landslide mudslide, I kind of resolved not waste my energy on the VT secessionists any more. It’s like sitting around posting about what Lyndon LaRouche is up to lately, in that it matters as much.

Touche.  According to them, Events in Egypt Prove Larouche Right!  Also events everywhere PROVE Larouche Right!  It’s uncanny.  I think it proves Sherman Skolnik right myself.

Given Skolnick’s tendency to define himself as virtually the lone voice of reason in American media, the only one untainted by nefarious connections to the mob or the Bilderbergs or the Rothschilds or the Mossad or the military-industrial complex (what Chomsky calls “the Pentagon system”), his reluctance to engage in public discourse is a little confusing. The dialogues on “Broadsides” are just as one-sided as those on Fox News, the guests every bit as sketchy in terms of reputation and affiliation as those on “Nightline” or “Meet the Press.” Like those he criticizes, Skolnick fancies himself omniscient, so far ahead of the pack that the “proof” of his theories often comes from his own work. Only LaRouche is that openly referential of and reverential to himself; as opposed to Chomsky’s dense, Times-heavy footnotes, their “facts” pass without even the vaguest reinforcement. I’m willing to accept that as necessary to function efficiently, given his utterly unconventional worldview; after all, everyone in the media is corrupt, or corrupted—even me, apparently, according to Skolnick

OR  Another way of putting it is this: you will rarely convince a conspiracy theorist that they are wrong because the conspiracy theorists as a rule are not concerned with facts, events, logic, or any of that. Instead, the conspiracy theory is merely an intellectual device -a sort of rolodex of “villains” who need to be “destroyed” because “THEY” are the reason the conspiracy theorist and their amigos y amigas are so politically impotent and are unable to succeed in society: it is always easier to blame others than take responsibility for oneself after all.

 And meantime:

The two men, who said they did not want to be identified for “security purposes,” (Projection?) irked at least a few passersby who expressed frustration at the altered Obama portrait.  […]
Those LaRouche loonies still around? I thought they went extinct ages ago. There’s nothing I like about Obama’s policies. However, I don’t like any American politician being compared to Hitler. IMHO it undermines the attrocities of the nazis. I do agree that these guys have the right to do what they’re doing.
You’d have to be more than a little nutty to travel from Redford, Michigan to the Saginaw Post Office to protest about the President, especially in this freezing weather. They probably both need a good psychiatric exam!

And meantime:
my prediction?
Sarah Palin is the 21st century’s version of Lyndon LaRouche.
she’s going to be a professional always runnin for president cult leader.
she’s going to become very very very rich selling campaign materials to a small percentage of the public for very large fees.
she’s going to run on outlandish, wacky, retarded, bullshit campaign ideas that annoy the masses but make her small following giddy.
and she’ll lose every time, and make a bunch of noise about sour grapes, and do the same damn thing 4 years later.
just like Lyndon LaRouche

Meantime, reviews are coming in about Michelle Bachman’s Response to the State of the Union Speech.
. I guess he thought it was reminiscent of Ross Perot. Or may Lyndon Larouche’s fireside chats with his socks falling down. It was not the teabaggers greatest moment.
EdwardTeller January 25th, 2011 at 8:11 pm. 147. Just stopped throwing up after Obama’s nuttiness. Is Palin going to deliver a rebuttal rebuttal rebuttal? And Lyndon LaRouche a rebuttal rebuttal rebuttal rebuttal?

I hasten, though — from a deleted link:

Can anyone tell me if the American Tea Party revolves around Lyndon La Rouche and his philosophy? While there is much about La Rouche that I admire and actually promote I am aghast at the most fundamental of his words.
In the late 1980’s I supported a political movement in Queensland called Citizens’ Electoral Council (CEC). It was probably about 1989 that two of the head honchos of the movement went to America with the express purpose of meeting La Rouche. The printed matter they brought back caused me to comment, “This bloke’s still engaged in the Boston Tea Party” because of his unrelenting hatred of all things British. Hence the possible link.

Answer:  Yes I can answer.  The answer is no.

From the front of the Larouche “Internet War Room”.  Something launched with Herschle Kurstofsky at the “Wikipedia Review” announcing plans to attempt “an experiment”.  The experiment appears to be little more than an onslaught of this time unidentified sock puppets making, verbatim, the same edits as all the previous sock puppets and making, verbatim, the same comments in response in acting dumb-founded when called on the redux.  The one interesting wrinkle comes in the form of the sheer inanity of the background non-Larouchian related edits, something moderately clever about Barbados Sheep.    There is a point where the administrator that changed this group of vandalism back related this to Will Beback, which may be a necessary data point if someone is charting this “experiment”.
I gather they believe they have Wikipedia in a conflict with its own rules.  And so goes the conflict: anybody who cares enough about this topic with relation to wikipedia ends up in the two camps — cultists rounding the bend under new assumed identities, and a couple of people concerned with wikipedia’s integricty with an interest in movementarians — their re-corrections get to be called out as “OWNERSHIP”.  I submit that a rule change against re-litigating done issues is in order, or to look over the current set-up for the always contentious cousin of the Larouche Movement — the Scientologists.

As a tangent, looking over the wikipedia edits and comments at Webster Tarpley — who does it profit for him to be referenced as a “prominent Marxist historian” — slightly down-graded to “adher[ing] to the Marxist historiographical method as an historian”?  Are there any actual Marxists who want to claim him?  I suppose Tarpley may have a quid pro quo with anti-communists — he gets to be a historian, they get him to be Marxist.  I have never had any problem categorizing Alex Jones as out of the “Right”, and where in the past he trumpeted the greatness of Ron Paul 4 times to every 1 for Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich, today the latter has been dropped your Kucinich sympathies and he’s referencing the evils of “Socialism” for the One World Conspiracy.  Perhaps, then, Tarpley is to Jones what Larouche was in Liberty Lobby reviews — “the good Communist” who slashes away at the right targets of Rockefellar, etc.  Extra fun note:  my sentiments on the worthiness of the Kennebunkport Warning controversy in explaining Tarpley aligns with the sock-puppet of Herschelkrustofsky.  Krustofsky’s line of reasoning is not extended to the same point in deleting the material about Tea Party Activists protesting the Larouche presence in their gatherings.

In addition to fighting this sentiment, reminscing about Walter Mondale and posting photographs of professional wrestlers, “Ace” at factnet is demanding discussion of Jeremiah Duggan.  Fine.

Jeremiah Duggan is a cautionary tale about not joining strangers at conferences away from civilization.  But most youth don’t need any warning – they’re not all that inviting.  I puzzle over some snide reference to a dummy facebook account with “no friends” (isnt’ facebook supposed to be evil — its place in the Eyptian Protests notwithstanding) — the more useful barometer for interest and concern is the number of people signing this petition.  We see the echoes of what is described as “ego stripping” marked in the spurious insults toward ex-members over innocuous interests.  Professional Wrestling and Dada are out.  So is walking in the woods and Spa Treatments.  We can stick up an impressive list of interests high, low, and middle in its culture scale that someone might have that will be attacked and mocked if someone attends a retreat conference.  It occurs to me that on college campuses, the org compete for space with some groupings of itenerant fundamentalist hellfire campus preachers.  (Moreso than the Objectivists.)  Thee are enough of them to create an industry for these sandwich boards and signs of long lists that include “sports nuts” and “computer nerds”.  I think the Larouche org ought to get in touch with these suppliers and have them custom-make something for them — replace “Damnation” with “Dark Ages”, replace some — but not all — of the afflictions and affiliations, and we get some real synergy going with this one.  (Hey!  There’s some synergy seen here.)

In the old days, revenire chimed in with references about the “Palme Affair”, tying it  into Jeremiah Duggan as a supposed misfire plot against the org.  Surely it is the only moment of relevance for the Swedish “European Workers Party” — as always the more interesting wikipedia read is the Larouchies’s objection to the article’s contents , which tell the story that, yes, the Swedes had good reason to investigate the org over the assassination of Palme.  Looking over this, it hits me that my previous explanation for their current cause with Palin is miguided.  (I will note that someone from the org needs to alert this Larouche-posting blogger — who posts this image  from another partisan photo-shopping source along with a bunch of images more atune to Larouche– that they love Charlie Rangle).   But Palin is a proxy for them, and they’re re-creating the excitement of the “political persecuation” of the Palme Assassination off of their Obama Mustache Hitler campaign. … the campaign upheld by ngonea.

Okay.  This is fun.  About one of the judges who made the decision regarding Rahm Emanuel.
It should note that all three judges on the Appellate Court appear to have connections to the Democratic party, and the justice writing the decision, Justice Hoffman had been chastised in the past by the Chicago Council of Lawyers for letting his political leanings stain his judicial reputation (in campaign material that criticized a LaRouche supporter).  Could it be that the court stepped over its bounds in this case at someone else’s behest?  Who stood to gain from this anyway?

So… In the March 1994 primary, the Council rated Judge Hoffman highly qualified for election to the Appellate Court. After that rating, just before the primary election, Judge Hoffman paid for his name to appear with other candidates on an election flier urging voters to vote for real Democrats and to avoid voting for LaRouche party candidates. The clear implication of this flier was that the opponents of the candidates listed on it were LaRouche party candidates. The flier would be understood by most voters to mean that Judge Hoffman’s opponents were LaRouche party members and would be understood by many voters to impugn those candidates.  Unfortunately, Judge Hoffman and the other judicial candidates listed on this flier had no LaRouche party opponents. The flier was deceptive and likely to mislead voters.

False Implication.  A smear for his opponent on the ballot.  You’re politically dead in the water with this tar.

Actually, strike something from earlier.  I don’t even know if they’re doing the college campus much these days.  The balance really does seem tilted toward the Post Office Circuit.  Or maybe college papers just don’t bother mentioning them much?  They’ve the cadres in six divisions for electoral office — starting on the road to a new Congressional Caucus that will do battle with the Blue Dog Caucus and the Progressive Caucus.  I say it is not too early for Adam Smith to dig up opposition research and go over the public statements made by his primary opponent, Dave Christie.  You don’t want to become the  Ralph Yarborough to a potential Lloyd Bentsen in Dave Christie.  I will sooner or later start on this blog here — but the election is a ways away, so I am in no hurry.  Hell — I didn’t even get the name right originally!
For further implications on that eventual “Dave Christie Blog Project” — see this comment.  They need to mention the name more often, lest they diverge away from it after Larouche passes.

First thing’s first — Is Adam Smith able to double the square?

This entry was posted on Monday, January 31st, 2011 at 11:36 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.