I wonder if Kevin Sheppard truly recognizes the significance of the comments beneath his “American Prospect” post. In one manner of speaking, this is a story of utmost significance to a relative handful of people, of interest to a handful more, of curiosity to still more (and, watching the political magazines’ websites note the thing, I note that the Reason blog has finally picked up the Washington Monthly article), and nothing to many more. For a brief spell I was actually a bit panicky about the prospect of attention due to my strange following of this story before it picked up a bit more attention. (Type “Ken Kronberg” into google and see what it gets me.) I never really had to worry about that, in hindsight — the man Larouche is nobody of any real significance.

I note that “Steve” appeared on this blog in February, just after I completed my odd series of posts about Larouche. He provided that “light bulb” analogy for how he feels with his indoctrination into the wonder world of Larouche. I suppose I may just say this is not a terribly original insight into the creative process — um, yes?, and in terms of Lyndon Larouche falls into a dangerous gnostic realm, an incubation into culthood, together with the phrase that he left me with last February “DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAN AND ANIMALS?” — which, ends up with this elitist pose where the decision on who is acting like man and who is acting like animals gets to be determined by … um? (And onto the conspiracies, where you are fighting the powers that be who are not so much guided by human forces of greed and power-lust but… an interest in Bestializing the Public? It is a question that clarifies the cult leader’s proported ideology, so… thanks to Steve, back in February.)

One of those “light bulb” moments. But I then had another, more significant “light bulb” moment in pursuing some of his work, just as Steve did — whilel looking through one of his more slap-dashed pamphlets; ie: a transcript of one of his “World Historic Internet Broadcasts” with a few not terribly coherent articles. I picked it up literally from out of a gutter and had it lying around for a rainy day in March — a month I had declared a Moratorium on the topic of Larouche for this blog because I was sick of him and was sick of entertaining a couple of Larouchie commenters here. My light-bulb insight into the words that I was reading, as I realized the implication of his and his youngest flock’s words of denigration on the Baby Boomers admist the surreal trumpeting of the “Youth Movement”: “Something horrible is about to happen in that organization.” When something did, I found myself somewhat stuck. Hence, making it a point to float something at least once a week, and at particular points in time — an obnoxiously larger number of times. (revinire’s appearance was a bit annoying in that he forced me to jump the gun here, when I knew that I would shortly have this topic dominating this blog for a spell — something which I always am a little bit apprehensive with.) So, with my premonition from reading his words and then seeing that premonition take place, I can look at this Steve comment:

I’ll close with a capsule summary of one of Lyn’s most profound and oft maligned works – “Beyond Psychoanalysis”. It is, unfortunately, written in a dense style, but it is intelligible if one works at it.

and suggest this entire thing is one sick joke, that dear cult leader wrote “Beyond Psychoanalysis” with some influence from Fred Newman — they seemed to exchange ideas during their brief tenure together — and there is not much worth saying.

From the message from Bebe, troubled by her sister’s entry into Larouchism:

And I sometimes wonder, from the way she talks about it, maybe they really ARE doing something. Maybe I’m insane for not seeing what is so obvious to her, that LaRouche has got it right. That maybe, as she says, he really is popular in other countries.

But then, all I have to do is try to wade through one of his essays, and I see straight again.

Seems about right. Try to read straight, without forcing it to make it makse sense, and it all makes perfect sense. Of a type. Our dear revinire asked me a simple question about Kronberg’s death, in scoffing the “baby boomer” angle, only one part of the explanation, sure…: “WHY?” — and after all this time I come to an interesting observation: At bottom, Beats the Hell out of me. Why should I explain the crockery of dearest Lyn? “What?” is another of the question, and “what?” gets you to a plenty horrific answer with many things involved herein.

I had some difficulty recently explaining my involvement with this to somebody in the real world in saying that I was kind of sort but not really in the next issue of the Washington Monthly (though, not much) because Now, this has nothing to do with me at all (a position by-product of the college newspaper reporter trying to find an ex-member and thinking he was me, which forced me to that sidebar statement “I am not nor have ever been involved…”) but… um… I… um… am helping destroy a facist cult (wrong terminology for my purposes) and… I realized I would have to email an explanation to better express myself.) Am I? I don’t know. Something probably will exist for the indeterminable future, I’m guessing. All I know is that they’re telling Dead Larouche jokes in one of the regionals, reshuffling is taking place and the LYM are about to be be required to earn their money, and the Larouche version of the Ken Kronberg saga has been absorbed into the official history — and the wikipedia “talk” page on Ken Kronberg is plenty interesting,

This entry was posted on Friday, November 2nd, 2007 at 3:59 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.