Addendum, 6-27:
I need to note that after a long absense of releasing rather lukewarm appraisals of the situation in Iran, due seemingly to Larouche being out of it and focused on “major speeches” in Europe — a bad sign for the post death of the leader — they’ve finally come out full bore against the British intransigence (the whole-hearted belief of “The Daily Elitist”.
Though, it’s a bit hard to imagine the “Support khamenei” line — or “The British must admit they killed Neda” –becoming a peition-gathering project, ala the current “Nancy Pelosi Sucks Eggs”, I gather the stance is enough to get the org some rumpus into Iranian State television (or round about there), for a full projection back to the cult about being a “American Statesman” figure — the better for a wikipedia edit.
…………………………………

Hand count.  How many people out there have been waiting to see when and where someone in the blogosphere or the web-o-sphere would take a Robert Dreyfuss article on the current events in Iran, and snip it next to parts of Robert Dreyfuss’s writings on Iran, perhaps from his book, from the 1979 to 1980 period?  (Today’s piece would appear in, for instance, The Nation — 1980’s Hostage to Khoemeni was published by the Lyndon Larouche Organization, as Robert Dreyfuss would have been the Secretary of State had Lyndon Larouche ever become president… no, don’t laugh.  Actually, yes — do laugh.)

(Crickets chirping.)
Okay.  Yes.  I am the only one.

Well, satisfactorily, here is my answer.  Right here.  This is the conspiratorial nattering which slides away inconvenient information, focuses on convenient threads, and seems to hold the American Clandestine government as the only actor that acts out there.  The Nation magazine is posited as a “gate-keeper”, a device to keep the Left in line, evidenced because Katrina vanden Heuvel’s father was International Rescue Committee which was a CIA plot.  Nonetheless, the author of this item apparently found The Nation valuable enough to continue a subscription until 2006, when it published a piece that followed the CIA line on the JFK assassination.

Actually, the Dreyfuss clippings here are from his 2006 book against his 1980 book.  And here’s the purpose of the Larouche organization.:

Surprisingly, though, the story of the CIA and British intelligence’s overthrow of the Shah is also told by Robert Dreyfuss in Hostage to Khomeini, 1980.   Dreyfuss rewrote the history of the Shah’s overthrow in The Devil’s Game, 2005.  In Hostage to Khomeini, Dreyfuss details how and why the CIA and the US military installed the Ayatollah and how Carter was manipulated into setting up the taking of the U.S. embassy — Dreyfuss even quotes the NYT to show how Carter knew that giving sanctuary to the Shah would lead to seizure of the embassy.  But now, as a Nation contributing editor, this time around Dreyfuss wrote, “Never did a revolution catch the United States more by surprise than did the one that swamped Iran in 1978-1979.” p. 214.
 
Why the change?  The obvious and most reasonable conclusion is that Dreyfuss is an intelligence agent or asset.  Dreyfuss’s earlier book was published by New Benjamin Franklin House, a Lyndon LaRouche affiliate.  One of the functions LaRouche served for the USG intelligence community was to advertise obscurely a covert operation that they dearly wished to keep secret, but to wrap it with the noxious LaRouchian ideology and nimbus so that anyone else respectable who revealed it could be smeared and dismissed as touting a crazy LaRouchian idea.

The one good thing that can be said with this to lend it some credence there  is that it is written in the past tense.  A second “say… what did Dreyfuss say round about 1979?” item is here.  (What did he say?  That the polot to bing down the Shah was orchestrated by, in particular British.  This is Larouche, after all.  Which I suppose makes some sort of conspiratorial sense in the way of Khamenei’s recent “British evilest of all” statement — the 1953 coup was encouraged by Churchill, had been rebuked by Truman.)

The topic of Larouche remains a bothersome one.  To have something of such irrelevance and then to peek into the natterings of the involved and their rather skewed perspective, trying at once to see where they are coming from … is a little disorienting.  I refer to the comments, and we can thread this roughly from  jimdeblasi to (as of this moment, and as of the 20th) MR76 at this Seattle PI story.  And it is a rather unremarkable story.  But comment by comment:

The La Rouche organization is an anti gay hate group.  With all due respect to the contours of the California Initiatives of 1986 and 1988, and the uses of the word “faggotry”, that’s a rather narrow classification for the org.
I already mocked Will I Am Tell’s comment in my last post.  He continues with a new comment under a different “question” moniker with such as:
Let me tell you first that I’m not a full out Larouche “supporter”.
Steve?  Is that you?
when I read the comments on this blog, it reminds me of something. I picture an article posted here, lets say it was posted in 1950 in alabama. (I know, no internet then, bear with me!) and it was about a black man who was hit in the streets, causing the white sherrif to arrest the white perpetrater for violating his civil rights. The comments on the blog that follow are “stupid n–ger shouldn’t be walking down that street in broad daylight.” and “damn n–ger was out there to rape a white woman!” and, “Why they chargin him with hate crimes, we all know n–gers ain’t human!”
In other words, those posting on this blog ought to be ashamed of tthemselves and their bahavior. Your attitudes are worse than racism, and you reveal what existential wretches you really are.

We are getting a rather unique perversion of the word “hate crime”.  Or maybe it’s not so unique, and every Cult of Personality deem themselves a necessarily protected class due to perceived historical persecution.

Silverchild, a name I recognize from my years of scanning these things, chimes in with:  Look at the BILE coming out of the minds and mouths of most of the folks commenting above- against LaRouche. It’s all media brainwashing. […]  As for the jerk who threatened the young LaRouche supporters, he has no right to threaten people or to rip down their signs-if he disagrees, he should create a movement and set up his own table.
Maybe it’s media brainwashing to go back to the article these comments are directed toward and pointing the rather minor nature of the reported threat?
But the Grand Dragon of Delusion comes with the final comment:

I’ve heard that back in the 1970s that Communist Party assaulted LaRouche organizers and that LaRouche responded with a self defense campaign called “Operation Mop Op.” They fought street battles with the Communists until the assaults ended. When LaRouche was arrested, the government sent 300 special ops police. You’d have to be an idiot to pick a fight with these people. No wonder the man threatened from his car and drove off!

So that’s the Larouche sequence of events on that one.  Bizarre for that item, is that it’s popped up in the wikipedia editing attempts.  Coincidentally, I assume.  But, if I may offer an explanation with Oscam’s Razor in hand, the man threatened from his car and drove off because it was an item of flippancy and a gut-level emotional response to the Obama Hitler Mustache and not, in the scheme of his life, a matter of much importance.  See, for instance, this reaction — just important enough to rip off one quick blog post.

Frequent blog poster “whitemale” shares his conversion story:

When Lyndon Larouche gave historical webcast in the month of July 2007, he pronounced at the time the stock market was at 14,000 that: “The Anglo-Dutch Financial Monetary system will die…”,
I nearly became overwhelmed with fright and fear because I never ever heard any forecaster speak with such utter certaincy and conclusiveness and surity. […]  I thought immediately to myself, “Lyndon Larouche must be a prophet or a majician with majical powers”, but there was more.
I note that he’s not there yet, as evidenced by allowing a few other experts into his purview:
You can call me a ‘tin-foiled’ hat wearer all you want for listening to peoples like Lyndon Larouche, Alex Jones and others but so far, most of everything that they have been warning about for years and years has come true.
As previous posts from other commenters told, people like Jones, Beck, and Paul are mere populists with no ideas.  This man needs to attend one these meetings discussed by this Berlin traveller to get his mind straight on that matter.

AND finally, in genocidal, Malthusian, energy plan news.  Also, in that vein.

And in a completely different vein.  Quite funny.  I guess The Abominable won.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009 at 2:22 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.