I think I am exhausting anything I have to say about this topic for the moment. So, I will safely move on to other topics and less estoeric concerns and leave this aside, barring any major development, for at least a week.

Thus, we have experienced the “white collar” social castes which, by and large, distinguish that Baby-Boomer generation from its “blue collar” contemporaries, a caste whose influence is reflected in the actual long-term effects of the influence of the “white-collar 68ers,” over the 1968-2007 interval. These effects have tended to prompt the culprits, the Baby Boomers themselves, to resort to sweeping and destructive, draconian measures of social control, such as today’s lunatic, so-called “environmentalist” measures of globalization, and, thus, into methods of political tyranny employed, ironically, tragically, as “corrective” measures of control of individual behavior, as by “environmentalist” measures which generate long-ranging ruinous effects as bad in their own way, as those of the pro-eugenics Hitler regime earlier. Often, even usually, this draconian reaction to long-term consequences of patterns in cumulative local, short-term behavior, is a reaction of a type which has little or nothing to do with the causes of the problem, but is simply the tyrannical enforcement of some antic delusion, as, presently, by many among our Baby-Boomer stratum itself.Jesus Christ on a freaking pogo stick! The “Larouche” search on my bloglines is pumping through quite a few items, which means the monkey-job in charge of posting these things up — presumably in Leesburg, Virginia — is working right now. For the sake of bemusement, I click in and see blathering about Baby-boomers!

To sum up the situation, guaging the general gist of the material and headlines from the latest edition of EIR (once upon a time a $300 publication — supposedly — now just a mouseclick away): We are on the verge of economic collapse. It’s the baby-boomers’ fault. And Al Gore’s. Not mutually exclusive, since Al Gore is a baby-boomer.

The post-war “Baby Boomer” syndrome passed through two distinct initial phases. The first phase, 1945-1956, is best described as “the triumphalist phase,” the phase of the euphoric delusion that “our type is on the road to endless triumphs” over other “classes” in our own nation, and over the world at large. This phase, of the “Organization Man,” coincides with the emergence of what President Eisenhower was to describe, at the close of his second term, as the initial phase of the “military-industrial complex.” In the meantime, over the 1957-1961 interval, a deep recession had demoralized the typical parental households of the “Baby Boomers.” There was a recurrence of that cyclical-like, manic-depressive cultural pattern during the span of the Clinton Administration, when Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s wildly lunatic financing of the combined housing and Y2K “bubbles,” prompted a wild-eyed, “we are wonderful” euphoria among the Baby Boomers, who had now taken over power in government from the hands of their parents’ generation. This was followed by the wave of cultural pessimism, echoing somewhat the 1957-1961 interval of pessimism among the generation of the typical parents of the Baby Boomers themselves. It was the politics of the disastrous 2004 Gore-Lieberman election-campaign, not the mystical power of the menopause, which prompted, and thus made possible the 2000-2007 pattern to date. For me, working in circumstances and professional functions which afforded me special advantages at that time, I can attest that the reactions to the delusions of 1993-1999, and the shift from 2000 on, parallel almost exactly that of the parents of the Baby Boomers with similar experience during and following the 1957-1961 interval. One wonders: it possible for Baby Boomers to actually think for themselves? Is it possible for Baby Boomers to actually think for themselves? I don’t know. Maybe he can issue that challenge for the baby-boomers under his control. Can the younger-than-baby boomer set — the Larouche Youth Movementers — think for themselves? For example: how is it a stunning EPIC crisis du jour that demands their guru be put in charge to create a new “economic architecture” when he has described a pattern of boom and bust — pass through tough times and come back to better times, as he said?

I notice a number of mistakes in this stupdifying article, of which I posted a paragraph and a footnote. What is the Gore/Lieberman 2004 campaign? And can we start getting the Larouchites to ape the phrase “mystical menopause”?

So, are you going to attend this? If no, why not? It’s as though he grabbed the propaganda from the corporate-funded think tanks (and there is money to be made by doing so) and catupulted right past it, just to make sure!

…………………..

Some time ago, the card-tablers came and tossed their usual pamphlets around. And thus we have the guidance for “Organizing the Recovery for the Great Crash of 2007”.

I think the most expedient way of disposing of this is to simply guide through the photographs — stock footage it all. So we have George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler. And we have What do these four have in common? They are all agents of the Anglo-Dutch forces who have been committed to destroy the US Republic since its inception. I think is background noise. It is filler. Don’t pay any attention to it. He just grabbed something out of his pamphlets from the 1980s to fill space. More pertinent to Larouche’s mind-set of the moment is the dichotemy between the following two items:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean turned to the upper 3 percent of family income brackets for financial support and notably the cronies of bankers and synarchist Felix Rohatyn(**). The lower 80 percent are basically ignored.

Former secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin, an intelligent and couregous man, but he’s not offering solutions to the economic crisis in which he sees dearly.

In a weird way, Howard Dean, because he garnered grass-roots support and is a hero to the Democratic base, is an enemy for Larouche to play off of. It is to pretend that he is the real grass-roots Democrat, and Dean is a pretender, a stooge to the upper 3 percent and … um… synarchists. (A term nobody but Larouche and his minions use.) I first noticed this when Larouche claimed a special election victory — an upset for the Democrats– last December, a defeat for Howard Dean’s “50 State Strategy”. How is that? I couldn’t make heads or tails of the thing, for our little cult leader was basically just bluffing.

On the other hand, Clinton and the Clintonites are a-okay! The photograph for Bill Clinton in this pamphlet has it that he was “going to enact economic policies toward Russia similar to those proposed by Larouche” but that the Impeachment stalled this, and thus came the Economic collapse Russia suffered in 1998. Hence, in a different pamphlet (I was hoping it would be this one, but apparently I was wrong — it’s one I mused through and threw away a long time ago), a pravda-like moment that I believe is emblematic of a number of things…

So, I guess it’s one of those “historic web-casts”. A 20-something year old “leader” of the “Larouche Youth Movement” asks, to paraphrase “What are your thoughts on Bill Clinton? Even though he’s a baby-boomer, he seemed to be good.” Larouche answered, as capsuled in the photograph caption “Bill Clinton, flawed baby-boomer, showed tremendous growth through his presidency.”

Further down we have a photograph of… the 20-something year old “leader” of the “Larouche Youth Movement”, and the caption, along the lines of “Outstanding leader of the Larouche Youth Movement: her leadership and poise show she’s going places and will guide the next generation out of the debris left by the Baby-boomers.” Or… something to that effect.

She… didn’t really ask anything… or show any leadership here. It is followership she showed in asking the question the Cult Leader wanted to be asked. Grooming for a place in middle-management of Larouche Inc, I suppose.

I suppose she might have known exactly what to ask from Larouche radio, as described here:

the place is kinda empty, a bunch of chairs, white board, laptop/speakers, coat rack. and a dinner for everyone. some ppl make weird remarks when i decide not to eat due to the use of chicken in every dish conflicting with my vegetarian status. they are all listening to a live broadcast (some kind of radio, maybe CB, but defiinitly not AM/FM) of a LaRouche reporter. mentions some current events specific bills in the senate/house, growing anti al gore polls.

… maybe one of those “stations betwen stations” that the Digital High Fi Radio ads are always going on about?

My mind reeled at that display, and it definitely was communicating something. Dennis King, who I must point out once wrote an article that was published in High Times magazine, and by a title and with a focal point completely different from what Larouche has told his minions — may well explain that unsettling display within this call to action. (Actually, Dennis King confuses me a bit. He is Ahab to Larouche as Moby Dick. Which, I guess, is fine — if King didn’t exist, somebody would have to fill that void.):

To help people who will be leaving the cult after decades of dependency and isolation from the real world, there needs to be a hotline and a support organization. This is a priority because the 84-year-old LaRouche apparently has decided to demote or expel scores of his burned-out old timers (those whom he calls the “boomers”) so he can establish fresh and energetic LaRouche Youth Movement (LYM) cadre in positions of authority. He seems to believe that the LYM’ers recruited in recent years, and ranging in age from their late teens to their mid-thirties, will carry on his legacy in an aggressive manner after he dies. He shrewdly (if nastily) recognizes that many of the boomers are tired of being 24-hours-a-day activists and are just going through the motions while longing for more personal space in their lives—and that once he’s gone they will either wander off or strive to turn the organization in a less fanatical (i.e., less “LaRouchian”) direction.The purge is well under way in Europe, where dozens of boomers have already been forced out. In the United States, Ken Kronberg was one of the first, but there will be more middle-aged LaRouche followers ruthlessly rejected after decades of slavish loyalty. Even if most of these people do not seriously contemplate suicide, they will be disoriented and in desperate straights. They will need professional counseling, they will need the support of former members who understand their experiences and have the compassion to talk them through the crisis via late night phone conversations, they will need assistance in surviving economically and finding jobs (or training for jobs) in the real world.

The uproar over Kronberg’s death may cause LaRouche to slow down his purge of the U.S. organization, at least for a few months, but a hotline is also urgently needed to help newly recruited young people, many of whom are not yet fully indoctrinated and might get up the nerve to escape if they were to receive a little encouragement as well as transportation and an escort back to their parents’ home.

It’s as good an explanation of “WTF” as anything. But in terms of post-Larouche Larouchism, I am having a difficult time imagining anything working. I suppose he can grant the powers of observation to somebody. North Korea went from Kim Il Sung to Kim Jong Il, and the cult of personality there continued. We don’t have a similar dynamic at work here, and if you strip it all down it is more personaity based a cult than any ideology, so… to what personality do you run it on to? Still, if I were in Larouche’s shoes, that’s the only possible way forward.

———————

Additional.  I am kind of embarrassed that I didn’t post this when I posted this late last night, but the wee hours of the morning were getting to me.  I would be remiss if I don’t cover this from the all pervasive angle, as opposed to the transitory issues of personality politics I dealt with of manipulating the supposed Clinton versus Dean controversy.  Synarchist is a synonym for international cabalist.  Felix Rohatyn is… well… a prominent Jewish banker (and Holocaust survivor).  So what Larouche is referring to is the International Jewish Banker’s Conspiracy.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 8th, 2007 at 1:39 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.