Two wikipedia articles I don’t think are quite fair, or proper.  The American Mercury and HL Mencken.  The date at which you can posit the American Mercury as firmly, and respectably “conservative” in terms of political character would have to date back into the 1930s, and there is no date at which it tripped over the deep end — into a sort of John Birch Society Cold War hysteria  with attendant conspiratorial traps  (example, from a 1956 issue:  “Discussion Groups:  A Leftist Trap” — Adult education programs, promoted by the UN and sponsored by tax-exempt foundations, are being used to further the Communist ends.”), and then even further into the heart of Willa Carto’s Liberty Lobby.  Perhaps you can stick a fork at it, as a matter of symbolism, when a young William Buckley bailed on the magazine and founded the National Review, the better to have a leading conservative magazine not featuring the articles of one G Lincoln Rockwell.  I have to wonder what this writer for the American Conservative magazine wants when re-capturing “the Old Right”, and citing an American Mercury article attacking the Nuremberg Trials, placed next to an uber-patriotic piece by Rockwell.  (Perhaps a few articles over to opposition in the creation of Israel?)

The section on the (elitist, curmudgeonly, invective-spewing contrarian) Mencken’s anti-semitism is an odd focus.  But it is, in exaggerating this trait, the basis for The final phase of the American Mercury’s tie to the legacy of Mencken’s founding — never mind the truth of the “POV” statement found here.

There is a long conspiratorial series by a Paul Stevens (I don’t expect anyone to know anything about him) in the American Mercury which grabs my attention, in pieces.  “Money Made Mysterious”.  It was written off the heels, and in the same vein, as an article for the July 1956 issue entitled “Bankers’ Blueprint for Ruin”, in part:

But the most spectacular instance of a nation which was prepared for Communism from within by disloyal businessmen and bankers was Tsarist Russia.  The story of the role of the European money powers and the business sharpers in the delivery of Russia to the Bolsheviks has never been adequately told.  It stands as a nightmarish example to the unwary.”
The softening up of Tsarist Russia was preceded by an underhanded struggle of Western European bankers to fasten their talons upon the Russian economy.  Whatever the faults of the Tsarist regime, it must be said to its credit that it firmly repulsed the Amsterdam — Frankfort — Paris — London — Vienna ring of international bankers and family dynasts.  It was the check which monarchist Russia administered to the Rothschilds and their yes-men which swung the whole camarilla, with its immediate control over Western European opinion, into open sympathy with the Russian revolutionaries.

Always with the Rothschilds.  The article goes on to lay out the International Bankers’ Conspiracy, and I don’t have the patience to craft a flow chart.

Paul Stevens had a “Money Made Mysterious” piece which was composed entirely of excerpts from speeches by “Jacob Thorkelson”.  The wikipedia article doesn’t do him justice, but I guess it would be up to researchers to flesh out this wiki stub.  Thorkelson was the Silver Shirter’s favorite Congressman.  Ironically and incidentally, he was replaced in office by Jeanette Rankin, the first woman in Congress when she was initially elected for a term in 1916 — elected out of office with her “no” vote to a declaration of War–, and in this second go around the only “no” vote for a declaration of War after Pearl Harbor… a more tolerable pacifist, I’d say, as opposed to the condensed Thorkelson speeches:

The Internationalist alone is responsible for the chaotic state in which we find the world, for wherever he is you will find dissension, hatreds, unemployment, poverty, and despair. […]
The Internationalist is, as I have already said, an insiduous destroyer, who, like a parasite which undermines the health of man, saps the vitality of nations in which he is allowed the freedom to operate.  He uses the public wealth to entrench himself at the expense of industrious and patriotic citizens.
[…]  The Internationalists, however, have finally come to the conclusion that they cannot create the world government except by destroying every sovereign government in the world, and it is with that purpose in mind that unseen forces are now at work in the United States to destroy our government.  In 1913, they were successful in destroying the Soverign government of the state when representation was abolished in the Senate of the United States.  They no doubt hope to destroy the sovereign government of the United States by suspension of the Congress, either by war or because of some critical upheaval.

Just to clarify Torkelson’s position about who is the “Internationalist”, As a point of consideration, a May 3, 1939 article in The New York Times, relating to the “Brown Scare” which wrapped itself into a “Red Scare” before the Dies Committee (House UnAmericans Activities Committee):
“Moseley Proposes Use of the Army to Drive Out Reds
Tells Dies Committee Menace Could Be Handled in Five Minutes from White House”

Major General George Von Horn Moseley, retired, spent five turbulent hours before the Dies Committee today, alternately insisting that a Jewish – led Communist revolution was about to overwhelm the country and protesting that he harbored no anti-Semitic prejudices.  With an oratorical flourish he asserted that “the Jew is an Internationalist first” and “a patriot at home second.”

The General’s entry into the Committee room was impressive.  He stepped through the door, with a military stride, acoompanied by a retinue of attorneys, augmented by one member of the House, Representative Thorkelson of Montana, whom the current issue of Liberation, organ of William Dudley Pelley’s Silver Shirts, calls a “new statesman reaching high above this miasma of skullduggery.”

And, for curiosity’s sake, a June 2 article “Moseley Depicts a World of Jewry“:

General Moseley, who apparently lives under constant dread of assassination, started to drink from a glass of water which had been put at his place, as is the custom, when he jokingly asked if the water was all right.  An aide, taking him seriously, whisked the water away and brought a fresh supply in a new paper cup from the cooler in the corner of the caucus room.

What’s my point?  On a more or less weekly basis I throw up what amounts to the debris left over on the web regarding Lyndon Larouche, and there’s enough fairly interesting material that I might have done so.  I could have done that, but I thought I’d step back and put something in context, mainly with regards to a comment from factnet that’s always bugged me:  a demand for King to quit lying and speak the truth that Larouche’s “anti-semitism” heralds from “[King’s] Leftwing Stalinist Obediance” and not this nazi-friendly “Fascism.”
Actually I’m also somewhat annoyed by cries that Larouche created some “unique” line of (nonetheless bad) thought here.  Yes and No, with a slant toward the “no”.

Say, isn’t the two week Uber-Fundraising about over?  How’s it working?  (Second box here would, I guess, suggest an answer.  See also final link where accolytes to noted late night radio talk show guest Ed Dames compete stubbornly with accolytes of Lyndon Larouche to argue that their guy was right regarding the Swine Flu Pandemic and its attendent destruction of humanity… is that fund-raisable?)

This entry was posted on Friday, May 1st, 2009 at 12:52 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.