“Post more Larouche stuff.  This other stuff sucks.”

Yes.  I’m certainly following the dictates of that post from several months ago.  If I had a bit more time, I’d go ahead and read just and move  toward completion of the “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know” page I’ve set myself out to do — only deadline being that I want to have it done
before the man passes away — replete with a heck of a lot more than I had when I finished last year’s blogging with this morass.  I now have a bunch of gaps filled in from that series of posts — vaguarities made less vague.

It all starts to make perfect sense.  Here.  I have more.

In 1965, LaRouche launched a struggle inside the Socialist Workers Party (a Trotskyite organization), with Carol Larrabee — also known in LaRouche land as Schnitzer or White.  She would run off to Britain with a new co-hort, which is when LaRouche is believed to have gone off the remaining bit of a rocker he was on.  They had an elitist view of how the Revolution was going to come about: we need professional revolutionaries, intellectual leaders are not going to spring from the fabled “Workers of the World”.  The ins and outs of their sectional had them join Gerry Healy and the “American Committee for the 4th International”, which they later bounced from over to the “Spartacist League”, a splinter
from the “4th International” — which in turn was a splinter from the “SWP”.  Not getting anywhere, his enormous ego not being gratified and genuflected enough toward, LaRouche quit these “4th International” organizations, LaRouche wrote a letter declaring that all factions of the 4th International were null and void, and now LaRouche was setting out to establish the “5th International”.  Which makes as much sense as
launching the “Democratic Policy Committee”.

“Operation Mop-Up”, where LaRouche either conciously or unconciously aped Hitler and his “brown-shirts” in storming Communist meetings and swinging machettes around, starts to make sense.  Control and hegemony over the Revolution would be consolidated and taken from the “vanguard left” — who were all Rockefellar’s agents, mind you, bcause they diverted attention away from the true revolution and to stupid issues of gender, race, etc, and once that was accomplished, the control over  conciousness of the proletariat would be wrested from the Bourgeoise culture as a whole.

I’ve wondered about LaRouche’s mother problems.  I recommend everyone, college students in particular, who LaRouchites have granted the privilege of gracing with their presence, to walk up and say, “I’m thinking of joining the LaRouche Youth Movement, but I think I’ll pass the idea
by my mom.” and see what happens.  (Other ideas:  walk by with a friend and make it so they overhear the casual conversation “I try to model my life after Aristotle.”  Or “If you think Doubling the square sharpens the mind, wait until you TRIPLE the Square!”)  I’ve generally suspected that LaRouche simply intuits that moms are a barrier and competing
influence; they’d tend to try to talk their young ones out of joining “cadres” of any sort.  Also, it’s psychologically a way of having them declare them their own person at a crucial point in their life.  Beyond the tactics of the affront, I’ve shrugged and figured that maybe Larouche’s strict and religious up-bringing lead him to hate his mother.  But there is one other possibility.  Fred Newman, another political cult leader of long standing, currently largely holder of the reigns of the remains of the Reform Party, whose configuration was somewhat obstensibly a sort of a psycho-analytic Marxist confirguration — had his group join the NCLCs for a year.  Insanely enough, Newman wanted to take over the organization.  I had figured that LaRouche’s “brain-washing” reprogramming, launched when Carol flew off to Great Britain, was a product of his circa 1960 computer programming career.  It may well be, but the timing of events suggests as much that LaRouche picked up his psychotic “reprogramming” from his dalliances with Fred Newman.  As well, his “mother complex”, and degrading issuances that his followers’ failures in organizing came from sexual impotence.  (It all comes back to those “vital fluids” of Dr. Strangelove lore, doesn’t it?)

I am reading through a 1988 issue of “EIR”.  Insane though it may seem, Portland State University has three “special issues” (education, AIDS, and the Gulf War Crisis of 1990) of EIR in its library — apparently donated by LaRouchites, the cover pages stamped with the imprint “Donated Material”, which is good because it sets aside the frightening prospect that $700 — yes, the pricetag on these 3 issues of “Executive Intelligence Review” come up to $700 — of tax-payer dollars went to the type of writing that is obstenisbly sold for $5 on street corners, but is generally conspicuously littered about.  $5 is about $7 too much.

So we have a transcript of the AIDS issue froma LaRouche informercial in 1988.  “Many are asking, ‘What does Lyndon LaRouche know about AIDs that Surgeon General C Everett Koop does not?’  Many are saying to themselves, ‘I thought LaRouche was an economist.  What does an economist know about AIDs?’  My profession is a little known branch of science, called physical economy.  That is a branch of physical science developed 300 years ago by…” and on it goes as the viewer says, “Wait a minute!”, since nobody’s free-word association starts off with “LaRouche” and “economist”.

As for what LaRouche knew about AIDs that C Everett Koop did not:  LaRouche had been watching for a biological plot for about a decade, and when AIDs hit he was very suspicious, sho he pulled together a crack research staff to investigate.  AIDs, it seems, was accidentally prodcued in the 1960s by experiments with human tissue.  It is not primarily sexually transmitted, but there is a conspiracy to make the public think it is so that they can push pornographic sex education in our schools as well as pushing special rights for the pervers lifestyle choice of homosexuality.  Also, a Mathusian plot exists to use AIDs as an excuse to clear out the, by the evil ones’ perspective, the unwanted blacks.  AIDs is a highly transmittable disease, which can be spread through mosquito bites, and if left untouched will decimate the population (which, by the way, the wacko environmentalists — “enthropists” be they, would love to see happen because they hate people and love the Earth instead), so we must wage WAR on AIDs, all expenses necessary, and thus we need to screen the population and test everybody, and isolate those with AIDs (or, humanely, provide plenty of hospital beds).  If elected prsident, Lyndon LaRouche will make AIDs HISTORY!

The acronym for LaRouche’s organization which pushed his ballot measures in California was– appropriately enough — “PANIC”.  The acronym for the organized opposition was “CALM”.  The ballot measures failed by a two to one margin, but caused health experts serious head-aches.  It is here, reading over his AIDs booklet, that I see the evil of the man, somewhere beyond the kookery, and understand the Dennis Kings of the world’s insistence that you can’t simply dismiss LaRouche out of hand as a simple inconsequential crank.  Granted, for the most part I do, but at least I see where King is coming from.  LaRouche has on repeated occasion posited the manner in which he may become president without an election.  A crisis hits, simply economic crisis in general, but fret not — AIDs is usable as an issue as well.  In 1987, when the stock market tumbled and commentators made allusions to 1929, LaRouchites descended down Wall Street to declare how they were right.  In 1998, when the Asian Markets tumbled, LaRouche wrote an open letter to Bill Clinton urging that Clinton appoint LaRouche as economic advisor and declare emergency powers which “every sovereign state has available”.  He cited China as “one of the best governments in the world today, in terms of quality of leadership, the kind of leadership required to get through crisis.”  Today I note that LaRouche praises Vladamir Putin’s rather autocratic government in Russia.  As for AIDs, LaRouche insisted, naturally, that he be the one in charge of manning his AIDs program.  In LaRouche’s mind, he will be right there when the economy unravels.  There is a review for his 1974 quasi-Marxist book which includes the line “Judging perhaps unfairly from his controversial manner, Marcus impresses at least one reader as a Me-for-Dictator type to whom it would be dangerous to entrust the task of drawing any boundary between the domain of freedom and that of necessity or order.”  Amazing precient for a reviewer who did not know what a “Lyn Marcus” was.  (Martin Bronfenbrenner of Duke University writing for the “Journal of Political Economy”, Feb. 1976).

So we have some parallels for how LaRouche postures for power to Adolf Hitler.  Basically the problem is all I can really do with that is smirk and say “Nice try, idiot.”  Simply put, he hasn’t gotten anywhere and is not particularly likely to do so.  But he does seem to have it in his head.  If he is following the path of the Fuhrer, the problem is the path of the Fuhrer is narrow and steep and tenuous.  He is a Hitler with a silly paper hat.  If you look and see a Hitler, you see that paper hat.  If you look and see that silly paper hat, you pause and consider that you still see a Hitler.

This entry was posted on Saturday, January 20th, 2007 at 4:25 pm 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.